LIBRARY 

PRINCETON, _N.  J-  ^ 

BV  820  .A5  1867 
Annan,  William,  1805-1882. 
The  doctrine  of  close 
communion  tested  by 


The  Doctrine  of  Close  Communion, 


THE  DOCTRINE 


<»  F 


CLOSE    COMMUNION 


TESTED  BY  SCRIPTURE  AND  REASON 


BY 

WILLIAM  ANNAN. 


.buy  the  truth  and  s=ll  it  lfbt."    Prov.  23:23. 


PITTSBURGH: 

DAVIS,  CLARKE  $  CO.,  9:3    WOOD  STREET. 

PRESBYTERIAN  BOOK  ROOMS,  94  THIRD  STREET. 

1867. 


PRINTED  BT 
B.iKEWEI.i  &    MiETHENS, 

Pittsburgh. 


PREFACE. 


The  volume  which  is  here  presented  to  the  public,  origin- 
ated in  representations  of  its  necessity  from  the  most  res- 
pectable sources.  Our  brethren  of  the  United  Presbyterian 
body  are  in  the  habit,  through  their  publications,  of  greatly 
(not  intentionally)  misrepresenting  the  views  of  the  Old 
School  Church  on  the  subject  of  catholic  communion.  "We 
are  charged  with  inviting  to  the  Table  of  the  Lord  "  all  par- 
ties of  prof  essed  Christians" — "  all  who  call  themselves  Chris- 
tians"— "  all  who  in  their  own  judgment  are  Christians."  &c. 
It  was  thought  a  brief  and  comprehensive  volume,  of  mode- 
rate price  and  easily  read,  might  be  useful  to  counteract 
these  misstatements,  as  also  to  place  in  their  genuine  light 
the  true  doctrine  of  the  communion  of  saints  as  taught  by  the 
Apostles  and  practiced  in  our  Church. 

That  "visible  discipleship" — "  a  credible  profession  of 
faith  in  Christ  and  obedience  to  him,"  have  been  the  uniform 
terms  of  communion  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is  proved 
by  such  formal  deliverances  of  her  highest  judicatory  as  th© 
following : 

"  We  have  ever  admitted  to  our  communion  all  those  who^ 
in  the  judgment  of  charity,  were  the  sincere  disciples  of 
Christ."  "We  require  nothing  more  than  faith,  love  and 
obedience  to  Him."  This  cannot  mean  that  every  one  shall 
judge  for  himself  as  to  his  possessing  these  qualifications. 


Vl  PREFACE. 

Again  u  We  are  willing  to  admit  to  fellowship  in  saerecl 
ordinances,  all  such  as  wc  have  ground  to  believe  Christ  will 
at  last  admit  to  the  kingdom  of  Heaven.'' 

Agreeably  to  these  principles,  a  case  is  on  record,  in 
which  it  was  formally  decided  that  a  person  "having 
scruples  concerning  infant  baptism, J:  might  be  permitted  to 
partake  with  us  of  the  Lord's  Supper — "  the  question  of  ex« 
pediency"  in  each  particular  instance,  being  left  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  Session  of  the  Church.  These  or  similar  state- 
ments range  from  1729  to  1839,  more  than  a  century :  and 
it  is  expressly  declared,  n  that  if  in  some  instances  stricter 
terms  have  been  insisted  upon,  they  were  fete  and  unauthor- 
ized." And  the  same  is  true  of  any  instances  of  more  loose 
terms  of  communion. 

As  regards  the  views  which  are  here  controverted,  the 
writer  has  aimed  to  state  them  fairly.  The  longer  he  studies 
the  differences  which  keep  our  U.  P.  brethren  in  a  separate 
organization  from  the  0.  S.  Church,  the  more  fully  is  he  per- 
suaded that  to  a  very  great  extent  they  originate  in  mistake, 
of  our  real  sentiments.  In  the  language  of  a  writer  in  the 
Christicni  Witness,  a  TJ.  P.  paper,  "there  is  a  most  wonder- 
ful degree  of  harmony  among  all  true  Christians  in  all  the 
great  leading  prinpiples  of  divine  truth.  There  is  a  unity  of 
doctrine  and  sentiment  and  affection  lying  deep  in  the  hearts 
of  God's  people."  This  is  especially  truf  of  sound  Calvinis- 
tic  Presbyterians,  and  should  shame  thprn  out  of  their  sinful 
divisions. 

AUEnnEM'  CUT.  April  17;  18**. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAP.  I. 

CHAR  II. 

CHAP.  III. 

CHAP.  IV. 

CHAP.  V. 

CHAP.  VI. 
CHAP.  VII. 
CHAP.  VIII. 
CHAP.  IX. 
CHAP.  X. 
CHAP.  XI. 

APPENDIX, 


Page 

7 


Statement  of  the  Question, 
Historical  View  of  the  Subject,  19 
Historic^  View,  continued,  -  30 
Historical  View,  concluded,  -     38 

ArPEAL  to  Scripture  and  Keason,     56 
Appeal,  &c,  concluded,  '_  -       -     65 

Doctrine  of  Westminster  Assembly,  70 
Inconsistencies  of  Close  Commuxion,92 


Proof-Texts  Examined, 
Fallacies  Detected,  - 
More  Fallacies, 

A  Remedy  for  Division. 


107 
121 
140 
144 
149 


THE 


\artxxm  of  €\mt  Cntmmwiom 


CHAPTER   L, 

STATEMENT  OF  THE  QUESTION. 

MONGr  the  controversies  which  have  divided  and 
weakened  the  Christian  church,  thus  in  a  mea- 
sure paralyzing  her  efforts  to  enlighten  and  save  man- 
kind, the  question  of  close  communion  has  contributed 
its  share  of  malign  influence.  According  to  the  teach- 
ing of  several  of  the  denominations,  which  do  not  differ 
on  the  great  fundamental  doctrines  of  grace  as  taught 
in  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms,  it  is  a 
duty  enjoined  by  the  Author  of  Christianity,  to  refuse 
communion  in  sealing  ordinances  to  all  who  are  not  of 
their  sect,  though  acknowledged  to  be  Christians  by 
profession,  and  in  their  walk  and  conversation  credita- 
ble followers  and  friends  of  a  common  Lord.  The  ad- 
vocates of  these  rigid  views  give  them  considerable 
prominence  in  their  standards  and  controversial  wri- 
tings ;  and  with  them  it  is  plainly  a  matter  of  con- 
science to  deny  admission  to  their  communion  table,  to 
many  who  are  otherwise  recognized  as  sincere  believ- 
ers in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  children  of  the  common 
2 


8  STATEMENT   OF  THE    QUESTION. 

faith  and  hope  of  the  gospel.  A  dogma  which  thus 
divides  from  each  other  the  mutual  friends  of  the  Re- 
deemer, forbids  their  participation  in  the  most  affecting 
of  all  the  memorials  of  his  dying  love,  and  apparently 
tends  to  perpetuate  schism  in  the  body  of  Christ,  has 
in  its  very  terms  a  strong  presumption  against  its  truth. 
To  examine  its  foundations  in  the  light  of  Scripture 
and  reason  is  the  object  of  this  volume. 

In  testing  the  Scriptural  authority  for  this  theory  of 
communion,  it  is  proper  to  state  it  in  the  precise  terms 
of  its  abettors,  as  follows : 

"  "We  declare,  that  the  church  should  not  extend  com- 
munion in  sealing  ordinances  to  those  who  refuse  adherence 
to  her  profession,  or  subjection  to  her  government  and 
discipline,  or  who  refuse  to  forsake  a  communion  which 
is  inconsistent  with  the  profession  that  she  makes ;  nor 
should  communion  in  any  ordinance  of  worship  be  held 
under  such  circumstances  as  would  be  inconsistent  with 
the  keeping  of  these  ordinances  pure  and  entire,  or  so 
as  to  give  countenance  to  any  corruption  of  the  doctrines 
and  institutions  of  Christ."* 

Or  as  otherwise  expressed, 

u  The  church  cannot,  without  betraying  her  trust,  receive 
into  her  fellowship  those  who  are  unwilling  to  unite  with 
her  in  her  testimony  for  the  truth,  and  refuse  to  submit  to 
her  authority."! 

This  certainly  sounds  very  well,  and  when  we  re- 
member the  great  value  which  the  Holy  Scriptures  at- 
tach to  divine  truth  as  the  appointed  means  of  sanctifi- 
cation,  and  which  we  are  commanded  to  "  buy  and  not 

*  Testimony  of  the  U.  P.  Church,  Article  16. 
f  Church  Fellowship,  by  Dr.  Pressly. 


STATEMENT   OP  THE   QUESTION..  9 

to  sell,"  the  theory  assumes  very  considerable  plausi- 
bility. We  may  add,  that  if  these  brethren  had  so 
framed  their  doctrine  as  to  indicate  by  the  phrase 
"  the  truth,"  only  those  grand,  essential,  fundamental 
principles  which  lie  at  the  basis  of  all  Christian  char- 
acter, and  which  are  commonly  included  in  the  term 
"  evangelical,"  or  the  distinguishing  "  doctrines  of 
grace,"  there  would  not  have  been  serious  objection  to 
this  feature  of  the  theory.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  invite 
to  the  Lord's  table  any  who  avowedly  reject  such  es- 
sentials as  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  Divinity 
of  Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  universal,  helpless 
depravity  by  the  Fall,  necessity  of  regeneration  by  di- 
vine power,  &c.  The  person  who  disbelieves  such 
foundation  truths  as  these,  however  correct  in  outward 
deportment,  cannot  give  credible  evidence  of  being  a 
Christian,  is  not  a  "  saint  by  profession,"  and  of  course 
is  to  be  excluded  from  the  table  which  is  spread  for 
the  children  of  the  family  of  God. 

But  it  is  obvious  to  the  slightest  inspection,  that  by 
"  uniting  in  their  testimony  for  the  truth,"  and  "  adhe- 
rence to  their  profession,"  the  advocates  of  what  is 
termed  "  close  communion,"  mean  much  more  than  a 
cordial  adoption  of  such  fundamental  doctrines  as 
above  indicated.  In  proof,  we  find  such  reasonings  as 
the  following  • 

"The  private  members  of  the  church,"  *  *  *  "if 
professors  at  all,  and  if  their  membership  constitutes 
them  professors,  are  professors  of  all  its  principles, 
and  of  course  have  come  under  an  implied  if  not  an 


10  STATEMENT  OF  THE   QUESTION'. 

express  obligation  to  maintain  them."  Again  in  the 
same  connection,  these  brethren  indignantly  denounce 
"  the  palpable  inconsistency/'  as  they  term  it,  of  the 
doctrine  they  oppose,  viz.,  "  that  there  are  some  truths 
which  Christ  has  made  it  the  duty  of  the  church  to 
profess,  *  *  *  yet  she  may  not  exercise  her  govern- 
ment and  discipline  in  maintaining  these  truths"*  i.  e. 
by  denying  the  privilege  of  communion  at  the  Lord's 
table.  This  is  certainly  plain  enough.  The  doctrine 
of  the  "Testimony"  is,  that  in  order  to  admittance  to 
a  seat  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  its  authors  and  advocates 
will  require  of  all  applicants  a  profession  of  "  all  their 
principles,"  for  the  obvious  reason  that  it  would  be  ab- 
surd to  teach  that  "there  are  some  truths  which  Christ 
has  made  it  their  duty  to  profess,"  but  which  they  may 
innocently  neglect  to  maintain,  viz.,  by  neglecting  to 
practice  "  close  communion  !" 

The  same  doctrine  is  still  more  emphatically  taught 
in  the  volume  published  by  the  U.  P.  Board  of  Pub- 
lication at  Pittsburgh,  the  author  of  which  is  Dr. 
Pressly ;  thus  : 

"  Union  with  the  church  in  her  profession  of  faith  is  a  pre- 
requisite to  the  enjoyment  of  her  fellowship." 

But  what  does  he  mean  by  her  "profession  of  faith  ?" 
Here  is  his  answer  : 

"She  (the  church)  has  no  more  right  to  receive  into  her 
fellowship  one  who  rejects  the  truth,  or  refuses  to  observe 
anything  which  Christ  has  commanded,  than  she  has  to  dis- 
regard the  authority  of  her  Lord  by  teaching  for  doctrines 
the  commandments  of  men."f 

*  See  "  Testimony  of  the  U.  P.  Church,"  pp.  37,  38. 
f  Church  Fellowship,  p.  41. 


STATEMENT   OF  THE   QUESTION.  11 

The  reader  will  notice  the  terms  employed :  "  she 
has  no  right  to  receive  into  her  fellowship  one  who  re- 
fuses anything  which  Christ  has  commanded;"  in 
other  words,  who  rejects  any  one  solitary  truth  which 
the  church  may  have  conceived  to  be  taught  in  the 
Scriptures !  Of  course  the  church  teaches  only  the 
interpretations  and  views  of  Scripture  which  she  be- 
lieves true,  and  to  reject  her  interpretations  of  Scrip- 
ture is  "  to  reject  the  truth,"  at  least  in  her  judgment! 
To  prove  most  conclusively  that  this  is  the  very  doc- 
trine taught  by  Dr.  P.  and  the  U.  P.  Church,  it  is  over 
and  over  again  repeated,  thus  :  "  she  (the  church)  may 
not  he  silent  in  relation  to  any  one  truth  which  Grod 
has  made  known  to  her;"  "she  cannot  without  render- 
ing herself  liable  to  the  charge  of  unfaithfulness,  con- 
nive at  the  rejection  of  any  one  truth;"  "she  should 
enforce  the  observance  of  all  that  Christ  has  com- 
manded ;"  he  means,  of  course,  by  excluding  from  the 
Lord's  Supper  all  who  do  not  subscribe  to  every  truth, 
as  she  understands  it,  which  the  Bible  contains ! 

"  For,"  he  adds,  "  the  church  is  just  as  truly  responsible  to 
her  exalted  King  for  her  fidelity  in  ruling  as  in  teaching — in 
enforcing  the  laws  of  Christ's  house  as  in  giving  instruction 
'in  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles.'  " 

And  to  render  his  meaning  too  plain  to  be  misunder- 
stood, he  adds : 

"  Here  is  an  individual  who  refuses  to  subscribe  to  that 
form  of  sound  words  which  the  church  has  adopted ;  and  not 
only  so,  but  testifies  against  it  by  professing  adherence  to 
another  which  is  in  some  degree  antagonistic  to  it."  "  Under 
these  circumstances,  to  open  to  him  the  door  of  the  kingdom 
2* 


12  STATEMENT  OF  THE  QUESTION. 

of  heaven,  and  receive  him  into  her  fellowship,  would  be  to 
render  herself  liable  to  the  charge  of  unfaithfulness  to  him 
who  requires  her  to  declare  the  whole  counsel  of  God  ;  and, 
by  the  exercise  of  her  authority,  to  enforce  the  observance  of 
all  things  whatsoever  Christ  has  commanded." 

In  other  words,  the  church  is  unfaithful  to  her  di- 
vine trust  if  she  neglect  "  to  enforce  the  observance  of 
all  things  commanded"  by  excluding  from  "  the  table 
of  the  Lord"  every  person  who  cannot  adopt  any  and 
every  truth  which  she  professes  to  adopt. 

The  theory  of  "  church  fellowship"  then,  as  taught 
and  "enforced"  by  the  United  Presbyterian  body, 
may  be  briefly  stated  as  follows : 

1.  It  is  the  right  and  solemn  duty  of  the  church  to 
demand  an  assent  to  every  statement  of  truth  which 
she  has  comprised  in  her  Confession  of  Faith  and  the 
Articles  of  her  Testimony,  from  every  person  who 
seeks  to  commune  with  her  at  the  Lord's  table,  or  to 
receive  adult  baptism. 

2.  Not  only  so,  but  "  the  church  may  not  be  silent 
in  relation  to  any  one  truth  which  God  has  made 
known  to  her,"  or  as  otherwise  expressed,  "  she  has  no 
right  to  receive  into  her  fellowship  one  who  rejects  the 
truth,  or  refuses  to  observe  anything"  or  "rejects  any 
one  truth  contained  in  the  revelation  of  the  will  of 
God,"  because  this  would  be  "to  connive  at  the  rejec- 
tion of  some  truth;"  it  would  be  "  to  betray  her  trust" 
to  receive  into  her  fellowship  "  one  who  refuses  to  ob- 
serve something  which  Christ  has  commanded ;"  i.  e.  of 
course,  as  the  church  interprets  those  commands. 


STATEMENT    OF   THE    QUESTION.  13 

Such  is  the  close  communion  doctrine  as  taught  and 
enforced  (to  some  extent  at  least,)  by  the  U.  P.  body. 
The  only  exception  made  is  that  of  "  babes  in  Christ, 
who,  we  are  told,  may  be  unable  to  give  an  intelligent 
assent  to  some  of  the  more  sublime  doctrines  of  the 
creed. "*  But  even  of  these  "babes,"  it  is  not  plainly 
said  that  their  errors  and  ignorance  are  to  be  connived 
at.  It  is  an  important  question :  would  not  the  church 
incur  "  the  guilt  of  unfaithfulness  to  her  divine  Lord," 
by  refusing  or  neglecting  to  enforce  the  observance 
(upon  these  "babes,") 'of  all  that  Christ  has  command- 
ed in  his  word?"  Even  in  the  case  of  these  "babes," 
the  most  that  is  plainly  conceded  by  Dr.  P.  is,  that  the 
church  should  "  take  them  kindly  by  the  hand,  and 
assist  and  encourage  them  in  their  efforts  to  acquire  a 
knowledge  of  the  truth."  But  this  is  a  very  different 
thing  from  admitting  them  to  the  communion  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  "  To  take  these  'babes'  kindly  by  the 
hand,"  and  endeavor  to  remove  their  ignorance  and 
errors,  is  a  very  obvious  duty.  But  the  real  question 
is  this :  previous  to  their  receiving  "  a  knowledge  of 
the  truth,"  are  they  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table  ? 
Would  not  the  church,  on  U.  P.  principles,  "  render 
herself  liable  to  the  charge  of  unfaithfulness  and  of 
conniving  at  the  rejection  of  some  truth,"  by  admitting 
these  "  babes"  while  unable  to  assent  to  "  some  of  the 
more  sublime  doctrines  of  the  creed."  It  is  a  question 
too  of  great  importance,  how  long  this  infantile  state 
may  be  supposed  to  last — to  months,  or  years  ?  or  to  a 

*  Dr.  P.  on  Church  Fellowship,  pp.  50,  51. 


14  STATEMENT   OF   THE   QUESTION. 

whole  life-time  ?  This  is  a  point  of  much  interest,  be- 
cause in  the  sense  intended,  "  babes"  may  be  found 
among  the  class  of  "  three  score  and  ten,"  i.  e.  persons 
who  through  a  long  life  have  continued  unable  to  give 
an  intelligent  assent  to  some  of  "  the  more  sublime 
doctrines  of  the  creed."  Must  the  doctrine  and  disci- 
pline of  the  U.  P.  Church  remain  in  abeyance  on  their 
account  ?  This  point,  however,  is  settled  by  the  "  Tes- 
timony," which  says,  "  No  Christian  should  be  exclu- 
ded from  the  sealing  ordinances,  simply  because  of  the 
weakness  of  his  faith,  *  *  *  or  because  of  difficulties 
that  may  be  in  his  mind  in  relation  to  some  points  con- 
nected with  the  profession  of  the  church."*  What 
these  "  some  points"  are,  we  are  not  left  in  donbt. 
The  natural  interpretation  is,  "  any  points  in  the  Con- 
fession and  Testimony."  But  is  not  this  "  to  connive 
at  the  rejection  of  the  truth?"  Is  not  this  "  unfaith- 
fulness in  enforcing  all  that  Christ  has  commanded  ?" 
u  Is  it  not  to  be  silent  in  enforcing  some  truth  which  God 
has  made  known  to  the  church  ?"  Especially  if  these 
persons  continue  in  their  infantile  state  for  years,  is 
this  true. 

To  our  mind,  there  does  appear  to  be  a  want  of  per- 
fect logical  consistency  in  the  several  deliverances  of 
these  brethren.  Dr.  P.  describes  "  babes"  who  should 
be  "  taken  by  the  hand,"  and  as  we  infer,  received  to 
membership,  as  those  who  dissent  from  certain  "  sub- 
lime doctrines."  But  the  "  Testimony"  as  expounded 
by  the  U.  P.  Assembly,*  requires  "  adherence"  to  the 

*  Testimony,  p.  39.      *  Act  of  Assembly,  Evan.  Repository,  July,  I860. 


STATEMENT    OF   THE    QUESTION.  15 

eighteen  "  Declarations  of  the  Testimony/'  as  well  as 
to  the  thirty- three  doctrinal  chapters  of  the  Confession. 
This  of  course  takes  a  much  wider  sweep  than  certain 
of  "  the  more  sublime  doctrines."  Again,  Dr.  P.  pro- 
claims large  indulgence  in  favor  of  certain  errors  only 
in  "the  more  sublime  doctrines/'  and  to  all  "babes" 
who  manifest  "  a  disposition  to  have  their  difficulties 
removed  and  to  receive  instruction,  and  who  demean 
themselves  in  an  orderly  and  peaceable  manner."  But 
the  Assembly  enjoins  judicial  process  against  all  such 
"violations  of  law"  as  are  wantonly  persisted  in;  and 
this  in  the  case  not  only  of  disbelief  of  sublime  doc- 
trines, but  also  of  the  whole  body  of  divinity,  and  of 
rites,  ceremonies  and  usages,  inculcated  in  the  "  Testi- 
mony." And  this  latter  view  appears  to  be  the  re- 
ceived and  acknowledged  teaching  of  the  United  Pres- 
byterian Church. 

It  is  moreover  obvious,  that  notwithstanding  the 
extremely  rigid  theory  taught  by  these  brethren,  they 
are  not  able  or  not  willing  to  execute  their  own  ordi- 
nances. Such  "  babes"  as  have  been  described,  are  no 
doubt  quite  common.  In  every  congregation  there  will 
probably  be  found  examples  of  these  infantile  dissent- 
ers, who  through  a  long  life,  provided  they  are  not 
guilty  of  "  wanton  practical  violation  of  the  Confes- 
sion and  Declarations  of  the  Testimony,"  are  constantly 
admitted  to  sealing  ordinances,  and  even  in  the  worst 
cases,  "judicial  process  is  to  be  the  last  resort."  But 
such  a  state  of  congregational  diversity  and  antago- 
nism of  sentiment  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  doc- 


16  STATEMENT   OF   THE    QUESTION. 

trine  that  "  union  is  the  basis  of  communion."*  If 
such  a  state  of  things  in  any  church  is  not  the  same 
as  "  conniving  at  the  rejection  of  truth,"  "  a  betrayal 
of  trust,"  as  Dr.  P.  expresses  it,  we  are  at  a  loss  to 
know  what  would  be  a  virtual  abandonment  of  the 
rigid  theory  of  "  close  communion."  Thus  even  its 
authors  are  compelled  to  shrink  from  executing  in  de- 
tail their  own  avowed  theory. 

We  have  thus  endeavored  to  state  the  "  close  com- 
munion" theory  as  it  is  taught  by  its  advocates  in  their 
accredited  standards  and  other  writings.  But  it  may 
be  inquired,  "  Do  you  wish  to  lay  aside  church  creeds  ?" 
By  no  means.  That  is  not  the  question.  The  question 
is,  has  the  church  a  right  to  require  the  adoption  of 
all  the  minute^points  in  a  voluminous  creed,  of  every 
one  who  applies  for  admission  to  the  Lord's  table  ? 
Creeds  we  hold  are  absolutely  necessary,  but  not  for 
such  purposes.  Again,  it  may  be  inquired,  "  Is  not 
the  church  bound  to  teach  the  whole  counsel  of  G-od, 
'  all  that  Christ  has  commanded ;'  or  can  she,  without 
betraying  her  trust,  '  be  silent  in  relation  to  any  one 
truth  which  God  has  made  known  to  her  V  "  We  reply, 
the  church  is  bound  in  faithfulness  to  her  Divine 
Head,  to  teach  all  that  Christ  has  taught  in  his  Word. 
There  is  no  dispute  on  that  point.  But  the  question 
before  us  is  this,  "Is  the  church  bound  to  require  of 
every  applicant  an  assent  to  all  the  doctrines  and 
usages  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  or  believed  to  be 
taught  there,  before  she  can  scripturally  admit  him  to 

*  Dr.  P.  on  Church  Fellowship. 


STATEMENT    OF    THE    QUESTION.  17 

the  communion  table."  Or  to  confine  our  view  to  a 
more  limited  statement,  "Is  the  U.  P.  Church  bound 
in  fidelity  to  her  trust  and  to  Christ,  to  require  an  assent 
to  all  the  doctrines  of  the  Wesminster  Confession,  as 
also  to  all  the  '  declarations '  of  the  '  Testimony/  of  each 
and  every  one  whom  she  admits  to  the  Lord's  table  V 
These  are  the  points  to  be  settled  in  this  discussion. 
Again,  it  is  inquired,  "  Do  you  wish  to  have  the 
sealing  ordinances  of  the  church  thrown  open  to  all 
that  call  themselves  Christians?"*  By  no  means. 
That  would  indeed  be  a  "  desecration  of  these  ordi- 
nances," as  has  been  well  observed.  The  safe  scrip- 
tural doctrine  of  ■'  catholic  communion/'  is  correctly 
stated  in  the  following  article  of  the  "  Basis  of  Union 
formed  by  the  Secession  and  Relief  Churches  of  Scot- 
land," as  reported  in  the  Evangelical  Repository  for 
August,  1847.     It  is  the  sixth  article  : 

"That  with  regard  to  those  ministers  and  sessions  who 
think  that  the  second  section  of  the  26th  chapter  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  authorizes  free  communion,  that  is,  not 
loose  or  indiscriminate  communion,  but  the  occasional  ad- 
mission to  fellowship  in  the  Lord's  Supper  of  persons  res- 
pecting whose  character  satisfactory  evidence  has  been 
obtained,  though  belonging  to  other  religious  denominations 
— this  church  allows  them  what  they  enjoyed  in  their  sep- 
arate communions — the  right  of  acting  on  their  conscientious 
convictions." 

This  we  take  to  be  the  safe  and  very  consistent 
theory  of  the  Holy  Scriptures;  i.  e.  "not  loose  and  in- 
discriminate communion,"  extended  to  all  who  "  call 

*  This  objection  is  made  editorially  in  the  United  Presbyterian  paper  of 
January  27th,  1864. 


18  STATEMENT    OP   THE    QUESTION. 

themselves  Christians;"  but  communion  with  those  of 
"  whose  Christian  character  satisfactory  evidence  has 
been  obtained."  This  u  evidence  of  Christian  char- 
acter" may  be  either  personal  knowledge,  or  it  may 
be  founded  in  an  acquaintance  with  the  correct,  or- 
derly scriptural  usages  of  the  denomination  to  which 
the  applicant  belongs;  or,  it  may  consist  of  the  re- 
commendation of  those  of  whose  Christian  integrity 
we  have  assurance  from  any  other  sources,  &c.  The 
editors  of  the  United  Presbyterian  will  thus  perceive 
that  they  themselves  "  have  caricatured  the  principle 
they  oppose,"  i.  e.  by  charging  it  with  the  absurdity 
of  admitting  to  the  Lord's  table  "  all  who  call  them- 
selves Christians."  If  there  be  one  or  more  sects  who 
practice  this  "loose  and  indiscriminate  communion," 
we  willingly  consign  them  to  the  tender  mercies  of  Drs. 
Kerr  and  Easton. 

Having  ^thus  by  a  careful  analysis  of  the  official 
statements  of  the  U.  P.  body,  ascertained  their  precise 
views,  we  proceed  to  test  their  truth  by  Scripture  and 
reason. 

It  may  be  proper  to  add,  that  though  the  discussion 
will  have  special  reference  to  the  views  of  our  U.  P. 
brethren,  the  argument  will  bear  equally  upon  the 
exclusiveness  of  some  other  Christian  denominations. 
Nor  can  we  more  appropriately  close  this  chapter  than 
with  the  following  quotations  from  two  leading  Bap- 
tists, the  first  from  the  author  of  the  '•  Pilgrim's  Pro- 
gress," the  second  from  the  pen  of  the  eloquent  Robert 
Hall.     Says  Bunyan — 


HISTORICAL    VIEW    OF    THE    SUBJECT.  IV 

ti  Touching  my  practice  as  to  communion  with  visible 
saints,  although  nut  baptized  with  water,  I  say  it  is  my 
present  judgment  so  to  do,  and  am  willing  to  render  a 
further  reason  thereof,  shall  I  see  the  leading  hand  of  God 
thereto." 

f*  There  is  no  position,"  says  Hall,  "in  the  whole  compass 
of  theology,  of  the  truth  of  which  I  feel  a  stronger  per- 
suasion, than  that  no  man,  or  set  of  men,  is  entitled  to  pre- 
scribe, as  an  indispensable  condition  of  communion,  what 
the  New  Testament  has  not  enjoined  as  a  condition  of  sal- 
ration." 


CHAPTER    II. 

A    HISTORICAL    VIEW   OF    THE   SUBJECT 

s3g||pi'HAT  saith  the  Scripture?  Has  the  adorable 
VL'wy  Head  of  the  Church  taught  the  doctrine  of  close 
communion?  While  we  cheerfully  recognize  the  holy 
oracles  as  the  authority  of  ultimate  appeal,  it  may  perhaps 
aid  our  investigations  as  to  the  meaning  of  Scripture,  to 
inquire,  first,  what  have  been  the  views  of  those  emi- 
nent men  who  have  been  at  different  periods  greatly 
honored  of  God  as  the  instruments  of  establishing  or 
extending  his  church?  How  have  they  interpreted 
the  revealed  will  of  Heaven  ou  these  topics,  and  what 
has  been  their  practice  in  accordance  with  those  views? 
1.  Calvin.  It  would  be  mere  impertinence  to  ask 
or  assign  a  reason  why  this  name  should  head  the  list. 
Surely  the  greatest  of  the  Reformers  understood 
his  own  system.     The  following  extract  is  from   one  of 


ZO  HISTORICAL    VIEW    OF    THE    ^L'U-JECT. 

his   letters  to  Archbishop  Cramner    of  the   Episcopal 
Church,  dated  Geneva.  April.  1552  :':: 

-;  But  this  also  is  to  be  reckoned  among  the  greatest  evils 
of  our  time,  that  the  churches  are  so  estranged  from  each 
other  that  scarcely  the  common  intercourse  of  society" lias 
place  among  theni ;  much  less  that  holy  communion  of  the 
members  of  Christ,  which  all  persons  profess  with  their  lips, 
though  few  sincerely  honor  it  in  their  practice.*' 
i;As  far  as  I  am  concerned,  if  I  can  he  of  any  service,  I 
shall  not  shrink  from  crossing  ten  seas,  if  need  he.  for  that 
object.  When  the  object  sought  after  is  the  agreement  of 
learned  men,  gravely  considered  and  well  framed  according 
to  the  standard  of  Scripture,  by  whom  churches  that  would 
otherwise  be  far  separated  from  each  other  may  be  made 
to  unite;  I  do  not  consider  it  right  for  me  to  shrink  from 
any  labors  pr  ditlicultie,-."; 

Let  it  be  observed,  that  Episcopacy  was  established 
in  England  at  the  date  of  this  letter,  and  these  are  the 
sentiments  of  a  man  who  believed  that  Prcsbytcrianism 
was  of  divine  riiiht,  because  clearly  taught  in  the  Avoid 
of  Cod.  Referring  to  this  letter,  and  quoting  largely 
from  "  Calvin's  Institutes1'"  to  prove  the  same  doctrine. 
Dr.  J.  M.  Mason,  a  prince  among  the  Associate  Reform* 
ed,  adds — -The  voice  of  Calvin  on  this  subject  was 
the  general  voice  of  the  people  of  God  in  that  agc/'f 
••  Nothing  was  further  from  his  meaning  than  that 
the  respective  members  of  the  ( Protestant)  churches 
would  not  commune  with  each  other  in  all  Christian 
ordinances  as  they  had  opportunity.     Repugnancies  on 

-See  the  whole  letter  as  lately  published  by  the  "Parker  Society"  in 
England. 

jPloa  tor  Sac.  Communion,  p.  L82, 


HTSTORTf'AL    VIEW    OF    THE    SUBJECT.  SJ 

that  head  were  then  confined  to  the  Lutheran*  and  Ana- 
bapfis/x."  "Calvin  would  have  preferred  Sbjoint-con- 
fession  as  tlie  bond  of  visible  union  and  communion. "* 
Diversities  of  sentiment  not  affecting  the  substance  of 
religion,  while  there  was  union  in  the  great  essentials, 
faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  repentance  toward  Cod. 
iftb.',  were  not  considered  as  a  scriptural  bar  to  commu- 
nion at  the  Lord's  table.  Such  were  the  common  sen- 
timents of  the  Reformers  generally,  in  the  days  of 
Calvin. 

Again,  when  banished  from  Geneva  by  the  stale 
authorities,  and  unworthy  persons  put  in  his  place. 
Calvin  writes  to  Pignreus  in  regard  to  the  lawfulness  of 
communing  with  the  Genevan  churches,  where  errors 
were  taught,  as  follows : 

"Wherever  Christ  rules,  there  is  a  church,  even  if  errors 
exist.  There  is  a  church  wherever  the  truth  is  preached. 
and  on  this  it  stands  as  on  a  base.  Even  if  the  doctrine  is 
mingled  with  sonic  errors,  I  am  satisfied  if  fundamen- 
tal doctrine  ts  maintained.  And  thus  even  in  Geneva 
may  the  pious  and  the  orthodox  participate  in  the  sacra- 
ments. Those  who  have  a  good  conscience  need  not 
absent  themselves  on  account  of  the  abuses  of  others,  provi- 
ded the  communion  be  solemnized  agreeably  to  the  Lord's 
word."  He  adds :  "I  will  never  be  induced  to  be  the  author 
(if  a  schism ,  until  I  shall  have  been  convinced  that  the  church 
lias  undeniably  departed  from  the  worship  of  God  and,  the 
preacjiinf/  of  his  word." 

Such  were  the  views  of  the  great  Reformer  of  Geneva 
who   has  sometimes  been  called,  though  in   a    limited 

Ibid.  p.  189. 


22  HISTORICAL    VIEW    or    THE    SUBJECT. 

sense,  the  father  of  Presbyterianism.  In  these  large 
and  liberal  sentiments  he  harmonized  with  "the  com- 
mon voice  of  the  people  of  God  of  that  age" — as  we 
are  assured  by  men  of  the  greatest  intellect  and  most 
extensive  learning.  Such  is  the  voice  of  history  at  the 
period  of  the  Reformation. 

2.  John  Knox  and  others.  Without  troubling 
tlie  reader  with  extended  quotations  to  prove  that  the 
brighest  and  best  of  Scotland's  early  worthies  were  of 
the  same  mind  with  Calvin,  it  may  suffice  to  present 
the  following  extract  from  the  "  Draught  of  an  Over- 
ture," the  work  of  a  committee  consisting  of  Dr.  John 
Mason  (father  of  Dr.  J.  M.  Mason),  Robert  Annan 
and  John  Smith,  and  which  was  prepared  and  pub- 
lished by  order  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod,  May 
1C,  1787  : 

"Ourfathers,  say  this  committee,  never  thought  of  pronounc- 
ing their  communion  unclean ;  i.  eS  the  communion  of  regular , 
and  orderly  Protestant  churches  who  have  clearly  expressed 
their  orthodoxy  in  their  confessions  of  faith,  adhere  thereto, 
and  walk  in  the  order  of  the  gospel,  although  differing  in 
some  external  modes  and  forms.  Far  less  did  they  (our 
fathers)  ever  think  of  totally  rejecting  it.  Kxox^held  com- 
munion with  the  foreign  churches ;  Welsh  with  the  Pro- 
testant church  of  France;  Moxcrief  with  the  Church  of 
Holland,  when  he  studied  at  Leyden  ;  Kenwick  received 
ordination  in  the  Church  of  Holland  ;  and  it  is  a  fact  that 
the  Scottish  commissioners  Rutherford,  Henderson,  Ballet/, 
and  others,  held  communion  with  their  brethren  in  England, 
while  they  attended  the  Westminster  Assembly." 

And  referring  to  the  original  Seeeders  in  Scotland. 


HI^CORICAL    VIEW    OF  Jil'E    SUBJECT.  23 

the  committee say: — "It  was  tvitli  the  greatest  reluc- 
tance the  ministers  of  the  association  withdrew  from  the 
"Established  Church  of  Scotland."  *  *  :;:  "They 
still  declared  that  they  meant  no  separation  from  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  but  only  from  a  corrupt  party  in 
that  church;  and  they  held  communion  with  several 
ministers  of  that  church  for  some  years  after  their  sep- 
aration. "  "On  the  whole,  add  the  commmittee,  we 
never  can.  and  never  will  embrace  the  principle  that 

•  J.  X 

all  the  Protestant  churches,  except  our  ovn  porty,  are 
unfit  for  Christian  or  holy  communion."  Again :  "  That 
a  temporary,  or  what  is  called  occasional  communion 
with  sister"  churches,  may  lawfully  in  .some  instances 
take  place,  is  what  no  man  of  understanding  who  is  not 
much  pinched  to  support  some  favorite  and  false  hypo- 
thesis, will  deny."  ':  We  will  not  pretendto  unchurch  all 
the  Protestant  churches,  or  say  that  their  communion 
is  so  impure  that,  it  would  contaminate  us  to  touch,  taste 
or  handle,  it  in  any  ease."  Such,  according  to  this 
committee,  were  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  Knox. 
Henderson,  Welsh,  Monerief  and  their  noble  peers  of 
the  early  Church  of  Scotland. 

:>.  Coming  down  to  a  later  period,  we  find  the 
(ieneral  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  passing 
Hie  following:  -'.An  Act  concerning-  the  receiving  of 
strangers  into  church  communion,  and  baptizing  their 
children.""  This  act  was  adopted  in  May.  1711,  and 
reads  as  follows  : 
"The  General  Assembly  considering  that  all  due  eneour- 
*  Arts  of  the  o.  A.  of  the  Ch.  of  Scotland,  p.  22,  23. 

3* 


24  BtlSTOpiCAli    VIJSW-OI1   TUT]   SUBJECT. 

agement   ought  to   be  given  to    persona   educated   in    the 
Protestant  churches,  who  have  come,  or  may  come,  to  re- 
side in  this  country,  and  may  incline  to  join  in  communion 
with  thjs  church  :     Therefore,  they  hereby  recommend  to 
rill   ministers   in    whose   parishes  jmy   such   strangers    may 
happen  to  reside,  to  show  all  tenderness  to  them  when  they 
come   to  desire  the  benefit  of  sealing  ordinances.     And  it* 
such  strangers,  being  free   of  scandal,  and  professing  their 
faith  in  Christ  and  obedience  to  him,  shall  desire  baptism 
,to  their  children,  ministers  shall    cheerfully   comply   with 
their  desire  in  administering  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to 
their  children,  upon  the  parents  engaging  to  educate  them 
in  the  fear  of  God  and  knowledge  of  the  principles  of   the 
Reformed  Protestant  religion." 

Here  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  whole  extent  of 
the  requirements  of  this  act  is  simply  "a  credible  pro- 
fession of  faith  in  Christ  and  obedience  to  him,"  and 
a  promise  to  educate  their  children — how  ?  In  the 
precise  belief  of  every  doctrinal  truth,  and  every  item 
of  worship  and  order  taught  by  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land ?  No  j  but  •■  according  to  the  principles  of  the 
Reformed  Protestant  religion."  whether  as  taught  in 
Holland,  France  or  elsewhere. 

From  this  and  other  forms  of  deliverance  we  learn 
how  the  venerable  mother  Church  of  Scotland  viewed 
the  subject  of  occasional  communion: 

(1.)  •'  This  act  was  passed  for  the  purpose  of  facili- 
tating communion  with  strangers  who  did  not  even  pre- 
tend to  join  the  Church  of  Scotland  afc  complete  mem- 
bers." 

(2.)  "  The  Church  of  Scotland  at  this  period  re- 
quired nothing  as  a  term  of  full  communion  with  her 


HISTORICAL    VIEW   OF   THE   SUBJECT.  21 


Zi) 


but  what  was  common  to  the  principles  of  the  Re- 
formed religion." 

(3.)  :CA  member  of  any  Reformed  Church  in  any 
part  of  the  world,  not  acting  unworthy  of  bis  profession. 
was  entitled,  upon  that  ground,  to.  an  equal  participa- 
tion with  her  own  members  in  her  most  sacred,  /.  e.  in 
her  sealing  ordinances.""1 

(4.)  This  shows  how  that  venerable  church  under- 
stood the  2Gth  article  of  her  Confession,  viz.;  "  Saints 
by  profession  are  bound  to  maintain  *  *  *  com- 
munion in  the  worship  of  God,  *  *  *  *  which 
communion,  as  God  offereth  opportunity,  is  to  be 
extruded  to  all  those  who  in  every  place  call  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  This  article  was  framed  by 
the  Westminster  Assembly,  and  still  remains  as  a  part 
of  the  adopted  standards  of  the  United  Presbyterian 
Church  in  this  country.  That  these  brethren,  by 
adopting  their  "close  communion"  theory,  have 
greatly  departed  from  ;:  the  old  paths  "  in  which  our 
lathers  walked  —  especially  that  they  have  misinter- 
preted this  article  of  Westminster  faith,  can  scarcely 
admit  of  a  serious  doubt. 

4.  The  fathers  and  founders  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church.  From  a  historical  sketch  of  that 
body  ':  prepared  by  request  of  the  General  Synod,"  we 
learn  that  chief  among  these  fathers  were  Dr.  John 
Mason  and  Robert  Annan,  ;-  men  acknowledged  to  have 
been  eminent  for  talents  and  learning.""!"     Of  these,  in- 

*  These  quotations  are  from  Mason's  Pli-n.  p,  294. 

f  See  United  Presbyterian  of  Cincinnati,  for  1850,  pp.  1$5,  146. 


26  HISTORICAL    VIEW    OF    THE    SUBJECT, 

eluding  several  others.  Dr.  M'Dill  says,  "  Theyrgave  a 
character  to  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  for  years," 
and  he  adds.  "They  placed  the  communion  of  saints 
as  nearly  on  the  true  basis  as  we  mayTexpect  soon  to 
see  it  placed — on  the  only  basis  on  which  catholic 
communion  can  ever  exist,  if  it  be  really  what  it 
should  be,'  the  communion  of  saints  by  profession."* 
And  of  the  •'  Overture"  quoted  |under  our  previous 
section.  Dr.  M'P.  says.  ;:I  would  invite  the  attention 
of  brethren,  ministers,  elders  and  people,  to  this  pub- 
lication, "f 

In  addition  to  the  extracts  already  made  from  this 
•Overture,"  the  doctrine  of -occasional  communion"  is 
carefully  guarded,  thus  :  ;;  By  occasional  communion 
we  do  not  mean  the  admitting  to  our  communion  a 
person  whom  it  would  be  sinful  to  continue  in  it,  but  a 
person  who  from  his  local  circumstances  cannot  continue 
in  it."  Again:  "It  would  bean  unreasonable  exten- 
sion '•'  *  *  to  make  it  include  all  pretenders,  to 
Christian  it//."  "We  would  guard  against  the  mis- 
take as  if  we  were  pleading  for  a  promiscuous  or  un- 
hallowed communion." 

Again,  say  the  committee  :  -  Nor  is  the  question 
concerning  any  church  or  religious  society  whatsoever, 
that  would  impose  any  sinful  terms  of  communion ;  or 
with  whom  even  a  temporary  communion  would  involve 
us  in  a  direct  or  implied  apostasy  from   the  testimony 

*  Christian  Instructor,  for  185^  p.  158. 

t  The  ■■  Overture  "  ha*  been  republished  within  a_frw  years  by  Dr.  M'Dill-. 
and  can  be  had  in  this  city. 


HISTORICAL    VIEW    OF    THE    SUBJECT.  27 

of  Jesus  and  that  holy  profession  of  his  name  to  which 
we  have  attained.  Wherever  even  a  temporary  com- 
munion would  do  this,  it  ought  to  be  avoided." 

Again:  "All  true  Christians  have  communion 
in  Christ  the  Head."  "They  have  all  communion  with 
God  the  Father,  with  Christ,  and  with  each  other  in  the 
truth.  They  all  think  as  Christ  thinks,  on  the  great 
foundation  truths  of  the  gospel.  They  are  all  taught 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  who  leads  them  into  all  truth.'' 
"  Were  it  possible  to  get  all  true  Christians  throughout 
the  world  into  one  church,  *  *  *  there  would  be 
very  little  jarring  among  them,  probably  none  in  the 
great  truths  and  duties  of  the  gospel" 

From  these  extracts  we  learn  the  sort  of  union  which 
these  fathers  proposed,  viz.,  union  in  "the  foundation- 
truths" — "the  great  truths  and  duties  of  the  gospel." 
This  is  the  "union"  which  they  recognized  as  the 
"basis  of  communion."  For  they  immediately  add: 
"We  must  allow  something  to  the  different  capacities 
of  true  Christians,  iheir  very  various  advances  in  know- 
ledge, grace  and  holiness."  "We  may  safely  say,  t lien- 
is  not  a  perfectly  pure  church  on  the  face  of  the  earth." 
And  when  the  apostle  addresses  his  first  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  "to  the  church  of  God,  to  them  that  are 
sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints,  with  all 
that  in  every  place  ecdl  upon  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ" — these  fathers  say  the  "  apostle  intended  all 
such  churches  as  that  at  Corinth,  though  several  things 
were  imperfect  and  wrong  in  it."  Such  were  their 
divisions,  saying,  T  am  of  Paul,  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of 
Christ, — profanation  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  &c. 


2$  HISTORICAL    VIEW    OF    THE    SUBJECT. 

The  theory  of  communion  taught  by  these  "  lathers" 
was  evidently  very  different  from  that  of  Dr.  P.  in 
'■Church  Fellowship,"  viz.,  "The  church  as  a  teacher 
may  not  he  silent  in  relation  to  any  one  truth" — "and 
she  is  just  as  truly  responsible  to  her  exalted  King  for 
her  fidelity  in  ruling  as  in  teaching,  in  enforcing  the 
laws  of  Christ's  house  as  in  giving  instruction" — and 
then  it  follows.  "  She  has  no  more  right  to  receive  into 
her  fellowship  one  who  rejects  the  truth  (he  means  "any 
one  truth/'  as  before)  or  refuses  to  observe  any  thing 
which  Christ  has  commanded  (he  means,  which  the 
church  thinl's  uhe  has  commanded"),  than  she  has  to 
disregard  the  authority  of  her  Lord  in  teaching  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men."* 

It  is  evident  too  that  Dr.  P\s.  theory  is  rigid  in  the 
extreme  (if  not  utterly  impracticable  and  absurd),  com- 
pared with  that  taught  by  an  able  writer  in  the  tfaii- 
fed,  Presbyter tan ,f  thus  :  "The  essential  elements  of  that 
union  which  the  Saviour  contemplates  (John  17 :  20-23) 
and  after  which  we  should  labor,  *  *  *  are  agree- 
ment in  the  fundamental  principles  of  gospel  truth." 
"The  apostle,  he  adds,  adverts  to  differences  existing  in 
the  church  at  his  day  (the  churches  of  Corinth  and 
Calatia,  for  example)  far  greater  than  those  which  sep- 
arate the  several  Scottish  Presbyterian  churches  in  this 
country" — and  he  might  have  added,  "far  greater" 
than  divide  all  other  Presbyterian  bodies.  Yet,  he  adds. 
'•  the  apostle  does  not  encourage  separation,  nor  even 
(in  all  cases)  recommend  discipline,  but  exhorts  to 
forbearance."     Well  may  the  same  able  writer  affirm. 

*  Church  Fellowship,  p.  41.  f  F..v  July.  1851,  p.  110. 


HiSTOIUCAL    VIEW    OF    THE    SUBJECT.  2$ 

•It  is  chimerical  to  expect  union  on  the  principle  of 
agreement  in  every  thing  (which  seems  to  be  Dr.  P's. 

theory),  and  the  framing  of  a  basis  of  union  on   that 
principle  will  be  found  to  be  lost  labor."* 

To  return  to  the  "Overture  :"  An  additional  proof 
that  we  have  correctly  understood  the  view  maintained 
by  the  Associated  Reformed  fathers,  is  the  fact,  that 
when  the  uniou  of  the  Reformed  and  Associate  bodies 
was  constituted,  several  ministers  refused  to  enter  it, 
alleging  as  one  chief  reason,  that  the  new  Synod  had 
taught  and  adopted  the  theory  of  "Occasional  Com- 
munion ;"  and  they  demanded  that  "the  privilege  be 
confined  in  all  ordinary  cases  to  the  members  of  our 
own  church. "t  To  this  it  was  remarked,  that  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Synod  never  meant  to  allow  it  but  in 
•extraordinary  cases."  This  was  the  view  of  the  Sy- 
nod ;  but  it  does  not  prove  that  such  was  the  doctrine 
taught  by  Messrs.  Mason,  Annan  and  Smith,  who  pre- 
pared the ,"  Overture."  It  was  probably  a  difference 
of  sentiment  on  this  topic  which  prevented  its  judicial 
adoption  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod ;  but  a  re- 
solution, recommending  the  Overture,  was  passed  in 
the  year  1790.  a  few  years  later.  How  these  fathers 
observed  the  strict  "close  communion"  theory  in  their 
practice,  will  be  next  shown. 

*  United  I'n'd'ijtrria/i,  l$bl.[K  110,  111. 
■j-See  Annan's  Killing  Elder, 


30  HISTORICAL   VIEW    OF   THE    SUBJECT. 


CHAPTER  III. 

HISTORICAL   VIE W~( Continued.) 

7?M [HE  fathers  in  practice.  Tlic  "union,  which  is 
■3s  the  basis  of  communion,"  according  to  the  under- 
standing of  United  Presbyterians,  is  expressed  in  the 
following  terms:  "The  very  fact  of  membership  (in' 
the  church)  implies  an  approbation  of  the  principles  of 
the  church."  "If  they  are  professors  at  all,  and  if 
their  membership  constitutes  them  professors,  they  arc 
professors  of  all  its  principles  j  and  of  course  have 
come  under  an  implied,  if  not  an  express  obligation  hto 
maintain  them."*  The  same  Testimony  "  declares  that 
the  church  should  uot  extend  communion  to  those  who 
refuse  adherence  to  her  profession" — meaning  of  course 
•profession  uf  all  her  principles,"  as  quoted  above. 
This  is  the  milder  form  of  the  required  "union,  which 
is  the  basis  of  communion."  We  have  before  shown 
that  both  "Church  Fellowship"  and  the  " Testimony" 
require  much  more  than  this,  viz.,  union  in  "  all  the 
truth*  which  Christ  has  made  it  the  duty  of  the  church 
to  teach  and  profess.."f  But  we  now  propose  to  in- 
quire  into  the  practice  of  the  "Fathers"  in  relation  to 
the  former  limited  and  milder  view,  viz..  "union  in 
nil  the  principles  of  the  church." 

One  of  these  ••principles"  of  union   and   communion 
*  Testimony,  p.  35,  f  Testimony,  p.  37 . 


HISTORICAL    VIEW   OF    THE   SUBJECT.  31 

of  course  is  "  the  Book  of  Psalms  exclusively"  Among 
the  reasons  given  in  the  Testimony  is  this  :  "This  in- 
spired collection  of  psalms,  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs/' 
"which  God  has  given  to  his  church,  are  to  be  sung 
in  his  worship  to  the  end  of  the  world."  And  in  the 
argument  we  are  told,  "In  making  use  of  any  thing 
else,  we  are  doing  that  for  which  we  have  no  warrant 
and  against  the  expressed  will  of  God."* 

It  is  a  fact  familiar  to  all,  that  these  brethren 
profess  to  make  no  use  of  any  thing  eke  "except  the 
150  psalms,"  not  even  the  numerous  inspired  songs  of 
the  other  Scriptures.  Was  this  the  teaching  and  prac- 
tice of  "the  fathers?"  Listen  to  the  Rev.  Robert 
Annan,  who  was  sole  author  of  the  "  Overture :"  "  The 
congregation  in  Boston  (of  which  he  was  pastor)  were 
dissatisfied  with  the  version  of  the  Psalms  used  in  the 
churches"  (i.  e.  Rouse);  "and  Mr.  A.  had  been  con- 
strained to  introduce  the  version  of  Tate  &  Brady."f 
Now  what  sort  of  a  "version"  was  this  of  Tate  &  Bra- 
dy? Was  it  at  all  more  "true  and  literal"  than  the 
paraphrase  of  Dr.  Watts  ?  Judge  from  one  or  two 
specimens : 

PROSE  VERSION.!  TATE  &  BRADY. 

He  bowed  the  heavens  also,  and  He  left  the  beauteons  realms  of  light, 
came  down ;  and  darkness  was  under  Whilst  heaven  bowed  down  its  awful 
his  feet  head, 

Beneath  his  feet  substantial  night 
Was  like  a  sable  carpet  spread. 

And  he  rode  upon  a  cherub  and  did    The  chariot  of  the  King  of  kings, 
fly ;  yea,  he  did  fly  upon  the  wings  of    Which  active  troops  of  angels  drew, 
the  wind.  Ps.  18  : 9, 10.        On  a  strong  tempest's  rapid  wings 

With  most  amazing  swiftness  flew. 

*  Testimony,  p.  46. 

f  Ruling  Elder,  p.  85,  written  anTl  published  by  the  Rev.  Robert  Annan. 
The  versification  of  Tate  &  Brady  was  published  in  England  about  1690. 
4 


82  HISTOKICAL   VIEW   OF   THE   SUBJECT. 

Thy  people  shall  be  willing  in  the    Thee  in  thy  power's  triumphant  day 
day  of  thy  power,  in  the  beauties  of    The  willing  people  shall  obey, 
holiness  from  the  womb  of  the  morn-    And  when  thy    rising    beams   they 
ing :  thou  hast  the  dew  of  thy  youth.  view, 

Pb.  110  :  3.        Shall,  all  redeemed  from  error's  night, 
Appear  more  numerous  and  bright 
Than  crystal  drops  of  morning  dew. 

I  am  weak,  O  Lord,  heal  me ;    for    Touched  by  thy  quickening  power, 
my  bones  are  vexed.  Ps.  6 :  2.        My  load  of  guilt  I  feel : 

The  wounds  thy  Spirit  hath  unclosed 
O  let  that  Spirit  heal. 

We  ask  attention  to  the  "gospel  turns"  in  the  last 
verse.  Dr.  Watts  himself  could  hardly  have  been  more 
guilty  of  "adding  to  the  word  of  Grod" — attempting  to 
mend  it,  &c,  &c. 

Truly  a  mortal  sin  this  "father"  must  have  com- 
mitted !  Where  was  his  dread  of  the  terrible  fate  of 
Nadab  and  Abihu  !  There  was  evidently  no  such  fear 
before  his  eyes.  "We  testify,"  say  these  brethren, 
"for  the  book  of  Psalms  in  a  faithful  translation."  But 
Tate  &  Brady  is  no  more  a  "faithful  translation"  than 
Dr.  Watts!  "We  testify,"  again  they  say,  "against  a 
loose  paraphrase  of  these  psalms."  But  Tate  &  Brady 
is  quite  as  "loose"  a  paraphrase  as  Dr.  Watts  —  at  least 
in  most  of  the  psalms  !  But  how  long  will  it  be  before 
Dr.  P.  or  Dr.  K.  or  any  other  of  these  doctors  of  the 
"Testimony,"  will  be  found  making  such  a  record  of 
himself,  viz.,  "that  his  congregation,  being  dissatisfied 
with  Rouse,  he  had  been  constrained  to  introduce  the 
version  of  Dr.  Watts"  ! !  What  a  prodigious  stir  such 
an  announcement  would  create  among  United  Pres- 
byterians !  How  soon  would  the  thunders  of  dis- 
cipline be  leveled  at  the  author  of  such  a  profane 
"  sacrifice  of  a  pig  instead  of  a  kid."     Yet  it  is  a  fact 


HISTORICAL    VIEW    OF   THE    SUBJECT.  33 

recorded  by  Mr.  Annan,  that  the  only  discipline  inflicted 
upon  him  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod,  was  this : 
their  clerk  was  directed  to  transmit  to  the  dissatisfied 
Bostonians  the  following  resolution  : 

"  That  the  congregation  should,  if  Mr.  Annan  continued 
with  them,  admit  the  version  of  the  Psalms  used,  and  mode 
of  singing  God's  praise  practiced  in  the  Church  of  Scotland."* 

This  was  the  extent  of  the  penalty  for  the  grievous 
crime  of  laying  aside  "an  inspired  psalmody"  and 
"  substitutiDg"  the  compositions  of  uninspired  men  1" 
And  the  punishment,  be  it  observed,  was  inflicted  not 
upon  Mr.  Annan,  but  upon  his  congregation. f 

Now  the  ministerial  offender  in  this  case  was  cer- 
tainly not  one  of  the  "  babes"  who,  as  Dr.  P.  expresses 
it,  "are  unable  to  give  an  intelligent  assent  to  some  of 
the  more  sublime  doctrines  of  the  creed. "\  This  was 
not  the  ground  on  which  he  was  treated  with  such 
great  indulgence.  On  the  contrary,  Mr.  Annan  is 
acknowledged  by  all  to  have  been  one  of  the  most  emi- 
nent of  the  original  founders  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church.  And  as  he  was  the  penman  of  the  "Over- 
ture"—  Mason  and  Smith  being  joined  with  him  in 
committee  —  we  naturally  look  into  that  elaborate 
vindication  of  sound  doctrinal  Presbyterianism  to  as- 
certain whether  the  theory  of  himself  and  his  associates 
differed  essentially  from  his  practice.  In  the  21st 
chapter,  on  Religious  Worship,  he  says,  "We  are  not 
afraid  to  assert  and  vindicate  the  propriety   (not  the 

*  Ruling  Elder,  p.  86. 

f  The  Rev.  M'Cune  is  not  likely  to  escape  so  easily. 

JCh.  Fellowship,  p.  51. 


34  HISTORICAL   VIEW    OF   THE   SUBJECT. 

exclusive  necessity)  of  using  the  psalms  and  songs  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  praises  of  GTod."  The  next 
page  shows  what  songs  of  the  Old  Testament  he  meant : 
"We  are  extremely  sorry  to  have  observed  a  growing 
disrelish  in  some  churches  for  the  Psalms  of  David 
and  other  songs  of  Scripture."  This  hits  Dr.  P.  and 
his  exclusive  brethren  a  hard  blow.  But  he  is  still 
more  explicit,  as  follows  : 

"And  we  do  not  mean  to  say  that  hymns  of  human  com- 
position may  not  be  lawfully  used  in  any  case  whatever.  But 
we  think  it  safest  generally  to  adhere  to  the  scriptural  psal- 
mody"*— in  other  words,  "  to  the  Psalms  of  David  and  other 
songs  of  Scripture." 

Such  was  the  theory  of  religious  worship,  agreeably 
to  which  Mr.  Annan,  yielding  to  the  wishes  of  the 
people  of  his  charge,  laid  aside  Rouse  and  put  in  its 
place  Tate  &  Brady ;  or,  being  interpreted  by  the  U. 
P.  " Testimony,"  laid  aside  an  "inspired  psalmody," 
and  substituted  "loose  paraphrases,"  "the  compositions 
of  uninspired  men  I"  And  the  Associate  Reformed  Sy- 
nod censured  neither  the  doctrine  of  the  a  Overture," 
nor  the  practice  of  its  author  !  A  man  of  such  "  loose 
principles"  could  not  now  be  admitted  to  the  commun- 
ion of  the  U.  P.  Church,  much  less  into  her  pulpits  ! 

It  is  but  a  lame  evasion  of  this  virtual  sanction  by 
the  committee  of  the  "  Overture"  of  "  hymns  of  human 
composition,"  to  allege  the  meaning  to  be,  that  such 
hymns  may  sometimes  be  "read  as  pious  poems." 
Surely  this  is  to  give  the  author  of  the  Overture,  and 
other  members  of  a  very  intelligent  committee,  small 

*  Overture,  pp.  97,  98. 


HIS^OHICAL   VIEW   OP   THE   SUBJECT.  35 

credit  for  sense — for  it  supposes  that  they  thought  it 
needful  to  teach  the  people  the  "  lawfulness  of  reading 
a  pious  poem ! ! "  Could  they  have  been  the  subjects  of 
so  great  simplicity  ?  Nor  is  it  more  to  the  purpose  to 
allege  that  the  committee  merely  mean  that  "hymns  of 
human  composition"  may  "  lawfully  be  used  in  learn- 
ing to  sing."  It  is  sufficient  to  reply  that  the  Overture 
is  speaking  of  "  religious  worship,"  not  of  "  learning 
to  sing."  And  certainly  Mr.  Annan's  congregation 
was  not  merely  "  learning  to  sing." 

If  anything  further  were  necessary  to  demonstrate 
the  precise  meaning  of  the  author  and  approvers  of 
"  the  Overture,"  we  find  it  on  page  8  of  that  treatise. 

The  writer  says :  "  We  can  boldly  declare  there 
is  not  a  single  point  of  divine  truth,  in  doctrine,  ivor- 
ship,  discipline  and  government,  appertaining  to  the 
Reformed  Church  of  Scotland,  for  which  we  do  not 
contend." 

Now  the  writer  of  the  Overture  well  knew  that  the 
"  Reformed  Church  of  Scotland"  had  authorized  and 
used  such  "  hymns  of  human  composition"  as  those 
two  by  Addison,  commencing:  "When  all  thy  mercies, 
O  my  God,"  and  "The  spacious  firmament  on  high," 
as  also  several  others  of  the  same  sort.  He  knew  also 
that  the  Scottish  General  Assembly  had  authorized 
sixty-seven  hymns  called  "  paraphrases."  These  it 
would  be  ridiculous  to  speak  of  as  "  inspired  compo- 
sitions." They  are  founded  on  passages  of  the  other 
Scriptures  than  the  Psalms,  but  are  not  versions  or 
translations  at  all.  But  the  author  of  the  Overture 
4- 


36  HISTORICAL   VIEW    OF   THE   SUBJECT. 

says,  there  is  not  "  a  single  point"  in  the  matter  of 
worship,  as  ordered  by  the  Reformed  Church  of  Scot- 
land, for  which  "  he  does  not  contend."  Of  course  he 
would  contend  for  "  the  hymns  and  paraphrases" 
usually  bound  with  the  Psalms. 

From  these  historical  facts,  what  then  are  the  ob- 
vious conclusions  ? 

1.  The  views  of  Messrs.  Annan,  Mason  and  Smith 
on  the  subject  of  "close  communion."  were  demon- 
strably very  different  from  those  of  the  U.  P.  brethren 
and  the  "  Testimony."  Both  their  doctrine  and 
practice  are  in  broad  contrast  with  those  of  Dr.  P. 
and  these  brethren. 

2.  If  these  "  fathers"  were  now  alive  and  members 
of  the  U.  P.  Church,  they  could  not  consistently  be 
retained  in  it.  The  "  Testimony"  gives  the  reason, 
viz.,  "  If  professors  at  all,  and  if  their  membership 
constitutes  them  professors,  they  are  professors  of  all 
its  (the  church's)  principles  ;  and  of  course,  have  come 
under  an  implied,  if  not  an  express  obligation  to  main- 
tain them."*  But  the  "principle  of  the  book  of 
Psalms  exclusively,"  these  fathers  neither  taught  nor 
practiced.  Not  only  "the  other  songs  of  Scripture," 
but  worse  than  all,  even  "hymns  of  human  composi- 
tion," they  pronounce  not  unlawful  in  some  cases. 
And  one  of  them,  at  least,  practiced  accordingly, 

3.  The  remarkable  facts  above  stated  prove  clearly 
that  the  wisest  and  best  of  the  men  who  formed  the 
Associate  Reformed  body,  gave  a  very  liberal  con- 
struction to    the  article   on   Psalmody   in   their    own 

*  Sep  pp.  37,  38. 


HISTORICAL   VIEW   OF   THE   SUBJECT.  37 

standards.  Their  "  Directory  for  Worship"  expressly 
states  :  "  Nor  shall  any  composure,  merely  human,  be 
sung  in  any  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Churches."* 
But  Mason,  Annan  and  Smith  plainly  intimate  that 
such  human  composures  may  lawfully  be  sung,  if  not 
"  in  the  A.  R.  churches,"  at  least  in  other  places  of 
worship.  Whether  "  Tate  &  Brady"  was  a  merely 
human  composition,  we  say  not.  And  about  ten 
years  later  (1796),  in  another  publication  illustrating 
the  "government,  worship  and  discipline  of  the  A.  R. 
Church,  and  which  was  sent  down  to  the  presbyteries 
for  examination,"  it  is  said :  "  Besides  which  (the 
Psalms)  other  songs  of  Scripture  may  be  added  to  the 
system  of  Psalmody,  as  the  judicatories  may  find  it  for 
edification."  Who  were  the  authors  of  this  paper,  we 
are  not  informed.  Though  not  mentioning  "  merely 
human  composures,"  it  does  approve  "  other  songs  of 
Scripture"  besides  the  150  Psalms.  The  authors  of 
this  document,  probably  some  of  "  the  fathers"  of  the 
church,  had  been  anticipated  long  previously  by 
Messrs.  Mason,  Annan  and  Smith  in  their  "Overture." 
And  Mr.  Annan,  as  we  have  seen,  had  used  in  his 
church  in  Boston  such  "loose  paraphrases"  as  were 
little,  if  at  all,  more  deserving  of  the  name  "inspired" 
than  evangelical  "hymns  of  human  composition"  de- 
serve to  be  called  "inspired." 

4.  If  such  were  the  large  views,  and  such  the  ac- 
knowledged practice  of  these  fathers  and  founders 
of  the  Associated  Reformed  Church,  we  may  readily 
conclude  that  they  did  not  require  of  others  in  order  to 

*  Bonk  3.  chnp.  2. 


38  HISTORICAL   VIEW   OF   THE   SUBJECT. 

be  received  to  communion,  more  than  they  themselves 
believed  and  practiced.  Thus  it  is  demonstrated  that 
such  men  could  not  assume  the  profession  of  Christian- 
ity in  the  United  Presbyterian  Church,  for  the  plain 
reason  that  they  could  not  be  "  professors  of  all  its 
principles,"  ergo,  saith  the  Testimony,  they  could  not 
be  "professors  at  all/'  Indeed,  how  could  they  be 
received  to  communion,  since  "  in  making  use  of  ANY 
thing  else"  (besides  the  150  Psalms),  they  "  were 
doing  that  for  which  they  had  no  divine  warrant,  and 
against  the  expressed  will  of  God."  So  teacheth  the 
"  Testimony."*  Some  further  facts  and  illustrations 
of  these  truths  are  deferred  to  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

HISTORICAL  VIE  W—{  Concluded) . 
E  proceed  with  the  evidence  of  the  "  fathers  " 


wJl     against  "close  communion,"  as  developed  in  the 


formal  proceedings  of  the  General  Synod  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church.  This  testimony  is  the  more 
conclusive,  because  it  was  given,  in  part  at  least,  whilst 
the  Rev.  John  T.  Pressly,  the  author  of  "Church 
Fellowship,"  was  a  minister  of  that  church.  We  shall 
show  hereafter,  from  his  own  written  declarations, 
that  his  views  of  "  close  communion,"  and  some  other 
topics,  were  then  the  antipodes  of  his  present  notions. 

*  "  Tliis  system    *    *    *    should  hp  used  exclusively."    So  snyR  Dr.  Kerr, 

r.  P.  Quarterly,  d.  135,  Jan.  ^0^\\. 


HISTORICAL   VIEW    OF   THE    SUBJECT.  39 

In  the  year  1811,  the  A.  R.  Synod  met  in  Phila- 
delphia, and  the  following  resolution  was  moved  and 
seconded,  viz  : 

"  Whereas,  it  appears  that  Dr.  J.  M.  Mason  and 
Messrs.  Matthews  and  Clark  have  joined  in  the  ordi- 
nance of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  the  Presbyterian 
Church;  and  whereas,  it  also  appears  that  the  Rev. 
John  M.  Mason  has  ministerially  joined  with  said  (Pres- 
byterian) church  in  the  use  of  Psalms,  the  composi- 
tion of  which  is  merely  human,  all  which  being  con- 
trary to  the  established  order  of  the  A.  R.  Church, 
and  having  a  tendency  to  injure  the  cause  of  the  Re- 
deemer in  their  hands ;  therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  the  Synod  do  declare  their  decided 
disapprobation  of  the  deportment  of  said  brethren  in 
the  premises,  and  command  them  to  return  to  the  es- 
tablished order  of  the  church." 

Such  was  the  resolution  of  censure*;  and  in  the  final 
action,  one  person,  besides  the  mover  and  seconder, 
voted  aye.  The  nays  were  thirteen.  Two  were  silent. 
This  was  negative  testimony,  but  we  have  something 
still  more  decisive.  A  few  days  afterward  the  following 
resolution  was  presented  : 

"  Whereas,  a  diversity  of  judgment  and  practice  has 
been  found  to  exist  among  the  ministers  and  members 
of  this  church,  relative  to  the  application  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Confession  of  Faith  concerning  the  com- 
munion of  saints ;  and  whereas,  the  course  of  correct 
proceedings  in  this  matter  must  depend  in  a  great 
measure  upon  circumstances  which  cannot  be  provided 
for  by  any  general  rule  ;  therefore, 


40  HISTORICAL   VIEW    OF   THE    SUBJECT. 

"Resolved,  That  the  judicatories,  ministers  and  mem- 
bers of  this  church  be,  and  they  hereby  are  entreated 
and  required,  to  exercise  mutual  forbearance  in  the 
premises  \  and  in  the  use  of  their  discretion  to  observe 
mutual  tenderness  and  brotherly  love,  studying  to 
avoid  whatever  may  be  contrary  thereto ;  and  giving 
especial  heed  to  the  preservation  of  sound  and  efficient 
discipline." 

This  resolution  was  passed  almost  unanimously,  there 
being  only  three  votes  against  it. 

Again,  in  1814,  resolutions  of  similar  import,  enjoin- 
ing mutual  forbearance,  &c,  were  before  the  A.  R. 
Synod,  at  Greencastle.  They  are  more  full  than  that 
adopted  in  1811,  and  especially  guard  against  any 
"  practice  which  (as  they  express  it)  throws  open  the 
door  to  promiscuous  communion  with  all  who  rank 
under  the  general  denomination  of  Christians,  or  to  the 
admission  of  erroneous  doctrine  into  our  pulpits." 
These  excellent  resolutions  were  largely  discussed,  but 
for  some  reason  "were  laid  over  for  future  action." 

So  also  in  1816,  measures  were  taken  toward  form- 
ing a  closer  union  with  the  Dutch  Reformed  body. 
Among  the  articles  agreed  upon  by  committees  of  the 
two  churches,  was  one  which  proposed  to  receive  their 
respective  ministers,  candidates  for  the  ministry  and 
private  members,  to  free  and  full  communion  as  the 
Lord  shall  afford  opportunity,  *  *  *  admitting 
them  to  sacramental  fellowship."  Certainly  this  is  not 
the  same  theory  of  communion  which  requires  "  pro- 


HISTORICAL    VIEW    OF    THE    SUBJECT.  41 

fession  of  all  the  principles  of  the  U.  P.  Church," — 
in  order  to  become  "  professors  at  all."* 

But  it  is  an  important  inquiry,  where  were  "  the 
fathers"  during  these  proceedings  ?  Especially  what 
was  the  course  pursued  by  such  leading  ministers  as 
the  members  of  the  Committee  on  the  "  Overture"  and 
others  of  like  standing  ?  Mason,  the  elder,  had  gone 
to  his  reward ;  and  of  Smith  we  know  nothing  further. 
But  Mr.  Annan  lived  through  all  these  enormities, 
this  declension  in  church  discipline,  u  his  eye  not 
dim,  nor  his  natural  force  abated."  Did  he  enter 
his  solemn  protest  against  these  sad  departures 
from  primitive  purity,  and  which  "  gave  such  counte- 
nance to  the  corruptions  of  the  doctrines  and  institu- 
tions of  Christ ?"f  The  "father"  who  published 
concerning  himself  that  he  had  so  far  yielded  to  the 
dissatisfaction  of  his  congregation  as  to  drop  "  an  in- 
spired psalmody,"  viz.,  Rouse's,  and  adopt  an  uninspired 
one  (Tate  &  Brady),  [ was  not  likely  to  make  oppo- 
sition to  any  such  movements.  Indeed,  so  early  as 
1802,  the  Rev.  E.  Dickey,  pastor  at  Oxford,"  Pa., 
writes  to  Dr.  Mason  concerning  a  "union  between  our 
(the  A.  R.)  Synod  and  the  0.  S.  General  Assembly  : 
It  is  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Annan,  which  he  has  openly 
expressed,  and  frequently  to  me  in  private  conversation, 
that  such  a  union  ought  to  be  brought  about."J 

Nor  should  it  be  forgotten  that  this  series  of  acts  in 
favor  of  "catholic  communion,"  extending  from  1811 
to  1816,  preceded  by  several  years  the  separation  of  a 

*  See  the  Testimony,  p.  37. 
f  Testimony,  p.  34.  J  Life  of  Mason,  p.  42( . 


42  HISTORICAL   VIEW    OF   THE    SUBJECT. 

number  of  the  presbyteries  composing  the  General  Sy- 
nod of  the  A.  R.  Church.  Formed  in  1782,  it  was 
not  till  1820  the  Synod  of  Scioto,  being  dissatisfied 
with  these  proceedings,  withdrew  from  the  General 
Synod.  And  it  was  not  until  the  year  1821  that  the 
Synod  of  the  Carolinas  erected  itself  into  an  indepen- 
dent body.  It  was  to  this  latter  Synod  the  Rev.  John 
T.  Pressly,  now  the  "most  s frailest"  of  all  close  com- 
munionists,  and  author  of  "  Church  Fellowship,"  be- 
longed. The  avowed  grounds  of  this  dismemberment, 
including  the  separation  "of  the  Synod  of  the  Caroli- 
nas" from  the  General  Synod,  were  "  differences  on  the 
subjects  of  communion  and  psalmody."  The  General 
Synod  had  countenanced  "a  latitude  in  these  particu- 
lars" which  the  Carolina  Synod  "regarded  as  unscrip- 
tural,  and  subversive  of  purity  and  order."*  The  part 
which  the  venerable  author  of  "Church  Fellowship" 
appears  to  have  taken  in  this  struggle  for  "purity  and 
order,"  will  now  be  shown. 

6.  Testimony  against  "close  communion,"  by  Rev. 
John  T.  Pressly. 

In  the  year  1818,  only  three  years  before  "the  Sy- 
nod of  the  Carolinas"  renounced  the  General  Synod 
and  became  independent,  this  gentleman  was  residing 
at  Abbeville,  S.  C.  From  a  letter  written  to  his  for- 
mer preceptor,  Dr.  J.  M.  Mason,  we  make  the  following 
extracts,  having  a  very  direct  relation  to  the  troubles,  the 
latitudinarian  principles  and  practices  which  threatened 
to  divide  the  General  Synod.     After  informing   Dr. 

*  Historical  Sketch  of  the  A.  E.  Ch.,  United  Pres.,  Aug.  1850,  p.  147. 


HISTORICAL   VIEW   OF   THE   SUBJECT.  43 

Mason  of  the  church  of  which  he  had  become  pastor, 
he  proceeds  : 

"  I  have  some  trouble  occasionally  with  extremely  good 
people,  (the  italics  are  his,)  who  have  great  attachment  to 
what  they  term  the  'gocd  old  way,'  but  which  might  as  fitly 
be  called  '  the  traditions  of  the  elders. '  There  are  three 
bones  of  contention  -which  have  already  been  often  picked, 
but  yet  are  not  likely  to  be  laid  aside  till  some  of  our  fathers 
are  removed  to  the  land  of  silence,  viz. ,  Is  it  lawful  to  omit 
the  observance  of  a  fast  preparatory  to  the  Lord's  Supper? 
Is  it  scriptural  to  extend  our  Christian  fellowship  beyond  the 
limits  of  our  own  church?  Is  it  right  to  use  any  other  than 
a  literal  version  of  David's  Psalms  in  public  praise  to  God?' 

Observe  the  contemptuous  style  in  which  Dr.  P. 
could  then  speak  of  these  "  traditions  of  the  elders," 
and  "  the  extremely  good  people'  who  gave  him  "trou- 
ble" on  these  points.     He  continues : 

u  When  I  inform  you  that  it  has  been  customary  on  sacra- 
mental occasions,  to  hear  those  anathematized  who  would 
dare  to  believe  the  affirmative  on  either  of  these  points,  you 
will  be  prepared  to  understand  somewhat  of  the  spirit  which 
we  have  to  meet.  A  large  portion  of  this  congregation,  how- 
ever, have  searched  the  Scriptures,  and  think  rationally  on 
these  subjects." 

It  thus  appears,  that  c-  the  extremely  good  people" 
who  did  not  "think  rationally  on  these  topics,"  were 
only  a  minority  of  his  charge.  But  we  have  something 
still  more  to  the  present  purpose : 

<!  Some  time  in  the  spring  of  this  year,  I  commenced  an  ex* 
position  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  not  with  any  inten- 
tion to  enter  upon  controversial  points,  but  because  this  Epis- 
tle abounds  with  rich  gospel  truth ?  in  the  first  place  clearly 


4-i  HISTORICAL   VIEW    OF    THE    SUBJECT. 

established,  and  then  applied  to  practice.  I  soon  found  that 
the  principle  of  the  church's  unity  occupies  a  conspicuous 
place  in  the  doctrinal  part.  This  (the church's  unity.)  being- 
admitted,  the  doctrine  of  catholic  commvniox  seemed  io 
In  an  irresistible  en,tsequ^,t<-c.  and  therefore  1  thought  it-  my 
duty  to  utter  it." 

This  is  plain  enough.  But  it  is  sad  to  reflect  that 
this  stern  advocate  of  ■catholic  communion"  was  but 
as  "a  light  shining  in  a  dark  place."  for  he  proceeds  : 

"•Some  of  our  brethren  talk  of  a  separation  (/.  e.  from  the 
General  Synod).  I  have  endeavored  to  remonstrate  against 
it.  and  I  believe  not  altogether  in  vain.  I  have  urged  thorn 
to  send  a  representation  to  the  General  Synod,  but  to  no  pur- 
pose. *■""" 

We  pause  a  moment  to  contemplate  the  relative  po- 
sition of  the  parties.  The  ••fathers"  of  the  General 
Synod  had  for  a  series  of  years  given  more  and  more 
countenance  to  platitudinarian"  principles  on  :;  commu- 
nion and  psalmody. "  as  practiced  in  the  Presbyterian 
and  Dutch  Reformed  Churches.  During  these  depart- 
ures from  :- purity  and  order."  the  Synod  of  the  Oaro- 
liuas  became  more  and  more  discontented,  until  at 
length,  forbearance  ceasing  to  be  a  virtue,  fcliejirinisters 
and  other  i;  extremely  good  people."  not  -thinking  ra- 
tionally on  these  subjects,"  sundered  the  tics  that 
bound  them  to  the  general  body,  and  set  up  for  them- 
selves. In  the  midst  of  the  agitations  and  commotions 
which  led  to  this  result,  the  Rev.  John  T.  Pressly 
wrote  the  letter  from  which  we  have  made  the  forego 
ing  extracts.  How  then  could  he  consistently  re'maiu 
in  that  connexion  for  a  number  of  years  .      Me  was 

■■■  Bee  \hfi  >vh"lo  of  UYc  remai-fcaUe  epistle  in  -  M*son's  i,u>V  pp,  4S§-  iss 


iriSTOKK 'A  L    V  1 1 :  W    0 P   f  H  R   B  I'  BJ  K< "l\  43 

certainty  not  one  of  the  "babetf^  toward  whom  he  en- 
joins tenderness  and  forbearance,    On  the  contrary,  he 

answered  minutely  to  the  description  which  he  himself 
has  given,  viz..  of  those  -against  whom  the  church 
should  elose  the  door  of  her  fellowship  ;"  ••'unruly  and 
disobedient  children."  to  whom  -she  should  apply  the 
rod  !'**  As  he  expresses  it,  he  was  one  of  those  who 
'•have  embraced  and  hold  principles  wTiieh  are  opposed 
to  the  testimony  of  the  church."  ;;They  assume  the 
attitude  of  opposition  to  that  form  of  sound  words 
whieh  the  church  has  adopted  as  her  testimony.  &c. ;" 
and  therefore,  he  adds,  "the  church,  as  a  prudent 
mother,  :;:  *  :':  must  deprive  them  of  distinguishing 
privileges." 

It  is  verv  plain,  therefore,  that  in  remaining  for  a 
length  of  time  a  member  of  the  Synod  of  the  Caroli- 
nas,  whilst  he  was  writing  and  acting  in  scornful  and 
bitter  opposition  to  their  views.  Dr.  P.  demonstrated 
that  in  his  own  ease  at  least  he  was  very  willing  to  es- 
cape "the  rod."'  though  himself  one  of  the  c- unruly 
and  disobedient  children  !'' 

Tt  is  no  apology  for  this  conduct  to  allege  that  the 
Ttcv.  J.  T.  P.  was  in  strict  harmony  with  the  lax. 
latitiidinariaii  principles  of  the  General  Synod,  and 
thus  protected  by  her  broad  shield.;  she  being  the 
representative  and  exponent  of  the  whole  A.  R.  body. 
This  will  not  shed  much  light  on  the  darkness,  for  the 
author  of  :;  Church  Fellowship"  assuros  us  that  the 
••  fathers"  of  the  General  Synod,  i:  who  prepared  and 
adopted  our   (his)  ecclesiastical  standards,     *      *      * 

*  Church  Fellowship,  pp.  51,  52. 


46  HISTORICAL  VIEW    Of   Tlii;    SUBJECT. 

did  not  profess  the  doctrine  of  catholic  communion." 
"  As  honest  men,  he  adds,  it  is  to  be  supposed  their 
practice  was  in  accordance  with  their  principles." 
Arid  then  he  quotes  the  Act  of  the  General  Synod  of 
1790,  which  speaks  upon  the  subject  of  what  he  says 
is  "now  commonly  designated  as  catholic  communion," 
which  "Act,"  he  assures  us,  "expressly  repudiates 
that  scheme  of  communion  (the  catholic)  as  subversive 
of  the  very  design  of  the  Confession/'  or  as  otherwise 
worded,  "  having  a  natural  tendency  to  promote  error 
and  extinguish  zeal  for  many  of  the  important  truths 
of  the  gospel."  Now  this  "Act"  was  of  date  1790, 
and  here  was  the  Rev.  J.  T.  P.  in  1818  contemptuously 
setting  at  nought  the  "Act  of  the  General  Synod." 
as  well  as  the  common  voice  of  his  own  particular  Sy- 
nod, and  in  no  mild  or  measured  terms  avowing  that 
his  "  practice  was  not  in  accordance  with  his  principles" 
— principles  adopted  under  the  solemn  obligations  of 
ordination  vows.     Is  not  this  strange,  very  strange  ? 

From  these  facts  it  appears  an  irresistible  conclusion, 
not  only  that  the  author  of  "Church  Fellowship"  was 
at  that  time  a  decided  and  zealous  (we  had  almost  said, 
violent)  advocate  of  "  catholic  communion" — not  only 
was  he  a  contemner  of  the  doctrine  of  "close  commu- 
nion," denouneing.it  as  the  feeble  device  of  those  who 
did  not  "think  rationally" — but  more  than  this;  by 
remaining  for  years  afterward  a  member  in  full  com- 
munion with  the  Carolina  Synod,  he  practically  ig- 
nored and  trampled  on  the  doctrine  which  he  now 
teaches,  the   doctrine  of  the   "Testimony/'  viz.,   "If 


HISTORICAL   VIEW    OF   THE   SUBJECT.  4< 

they  are  professors  at  all.  and  it"  tlieir  membership 
constitutes  them  professors,  they  are  professors  of  all 
its  ("the  church  V)  principles*"  By  his  own  showing,  he 
was  no  such  meniber  either  of  the  particular  or  the 
( leneral  Synod. 

More  than  this  :  «vc  are  assured  by  the  author  of 
"  Church  Fellowship,"  that  "the  church  has  no  right 
to  receive  into  her  fellowship  one  who  rejects  the 
truth,"  '•ant/  one  truth  which  the  Grod  of  the  Bible  has 
made  known  to  her."  ■•  For  she  must  teach  faithfully 
all  under  her  control  to  believe  and  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  Christ  has  commanded/'  and  "she 
is  just  and  truly  responsible  to  her  exalted  King  in 
rnliiig  as  in  teaching,  in  enforcing  the  laws  of 
Christ's  house,  as  in  giv  ing  instruction.' '  And  he  further 
represents  any  neglect  on  the  part  of  the  church  to 
carry  out  these  principles,  as  "  rendering  herself  liable 
to  the  charge  of  unfaithfulness  •"  for  he  says,  •*'  she 
cannot  connive  at  the  rejection  of  any  one  truth,  con- 
tained iu  the  revelation  of  the  will  of  God,"*  Such  is 
the  law  of  "  union"  in  order  to  communion  which  Dr. 
P.  now  propounds.  He  does  not  mean  merely  that 
the  church  should  require  all  her  members  to  believe 
iv.rrij  statement  taught  in  ihe  Bible  to  be  true,  for 
none  but  infidels  deny  this,  lie  obviously  teaches  that 
with  the  single  exception  of  "babes/'  the  ••'union  which 
is  the  basis  of  communion/'  must.be  a  union  in  every 
particular  truth  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  including  of 
course  the  interpretations  which  the  church  puts  upon 
*Sa»CUureh  Fellowship,  pj*  10,  41, 


48  HISTORICAL   VIEW   Or   THE   StfBJJECT. 

each  of  those  truths.     This  the  church  must  demand 
of  every  applicant  for  communion. 

Now  did  ever  any  denomination  of  Christians,  from 
Adam  to  the  present  day,  attempt  to  enforce  so  im- 
practicable and  absurd  a  scheme  of  communion  as  this  ? 
And  as  to  the  author  of  "Church  Fellowship"  himself, 
we  need  not  add,  that  while  residing  in  South  Carolina 
he  treated  such  a  scheme  with  the  utmost  contempt, 
and  very  justly  denounced  it  as  the  creature  of  those 
who  do  not  -think  rationally  on  these  subjects." 

Such  then  is  the  voice  of  history  in  regard  to  the 
views  of  the  leading  minds  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church,  on  the  subject  of  catholic  communion.  The 
"fathers"  of  that  body,  no  less  than  some  of  the 
"sons/'  have  evidently  left  on  record  a  decided  testi- 
mony against  the  extremely  rigid  theory  of  com- 
munion taught  by  the  United  Presbyterian  Church. 
We  next  call  witnesses  in  opposition  to  "  close  com- 
munion," from  the  Associate  body,  one  of  the  two 
branches  which  united  to  form  the  U.  P.  Church. 
7.  Certain  FATHERS  and  others  of  the  Associate 
Church.  "We  find  among  the  "Declarations"  of  the 
Testimony,  to  which  ••  an  adherence  is  required  of 
those  seeking  communion  with  us,"  the  sin  of  slave- 
holding,  which  is  pronounced  "  a  violation  of  the  laws 
of  G  od.  and  contrary  both  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of 
Christianity."  But  if  it  be  proper  and  obligatory 
upon  a  -faithful"  church  to  enforce  this  il  Declara- 
tion" by  refusing  membership  to  all  who  who  do  not 
adhere  to  it.   it   is  manifestly  no  less   a  violation    of 


HT:-T<»f!U  AT,    VIKW    OF    Till';    SUBJECT.  4*9 

"  purity  and  order"  to  jgtmn  such  persons  in  com- 
munion os  openly  reject  it.  For,  says  "  Church  Fel- 
lowship," "  those  only  should  be  received  into  her 
fellowship  whom  the  church  is  bound  to  receive  into 
her  membership."  Now,  if  such  as  reject  the  "declara- 
tion on  slaveholding"  could  not  be  received,  could  they 
be  retained  in  fellowship  without  grie^  oup  i  postasy  from 
the  truth  and  order  of  Christ's  house  ?  Certainly  not, 
for  the  -;  Testimony"  expressly  states  that  "slave- 
holding  is  a  sin.  and  consequently  a  disqualification 
for  membership." -and.  of  course,  the  same  is  true  of 
those  who  apologize  for  this  sin  and  plead  for  its 
toleration  among  the  members  of  the  church.  Such 
is  the  theory  of  close  communion  as  taught  by  the 
Ignited  Presbyterian  Church  in  relation  to  siave- 
liolding-.  We  proceed  to  show  that  it  was  not  t)\o 
theory  of  the  Associate  body. 

Jn  the  Evangelical  Repository*  the  organ  of  the 
■eiate  Church-,  appeared  the  following  statements : 

'•The  lust  prominent  and  direct  act  of  our  supreme 
church  Judicature  (the  Associate  Synod)  condemning  slavery 
Hud  making  it  a  term  of  communion  in  our  church,  w;e 
-d  at  Canonsburg,  May  20th,  1831.  Against  this  act  of 
Synod,  six  fathers  and  brethren  deemed  it  their  duty  i<> 
enter  their  solemn  protest.  -  A  Protest,'  we  are  told  in  our 
hook  of  discipline,  { is  a  more  .-olemn  declaration  [than  a 
dissent]  of  the  nature  of  an  oath,  of  deliberate  disagreement 
with  a  decision  of  a  court,  testifying  against  it  as  an 
erroneous  judgment  &c.  The  protest  of  these  six  father- 
and  brethren,  with  their  reasons,  was  laid  before  Synod,  at 
the  next  annual  meeting,  after  one  year's  opportunity  for 
delibeTation.'* 

*For  Jan.  1848, 


50        ifisTOiticAL  vjew  or  Tin-;  subject 

This  protest  of  the  "nature  of  an  oath,"  was  signed 
by  Messrs.  Andrew  Hcrrou.  James  Ramsey.  James 
Adams,  A.  Anderson,  Thomas  Allison  and  William  M. 
M'Elwee.  Yet  these  six  fathers  and  brethren  were 
not  excommunicated,  but  things  went  on  just  as  before. 
They  charge  the  Associate  Synod,  as  the  writer  re- 
marks, with  doing- in  this  Act  against  slavery,  "what  is 
not  only  without  a  irarrant  in  the  word  of  God,  but 
what  is  contrary  to  it.  and  that  to  attempt  to  carry  it 
into  effect,  would  not  only  bo  harsh  and  cruel  toward 
the  negroes,  but  highly  unjust  and  imfariom"  In  view 
of  this  state  of  things,  the  writer  then  puts  the  follow- 
ing emphatic  inquiries  : 

•;  1-  this  right  or  is  it  wrong?  If  right,  why  should  w<b 
make  any  difficulty  about  closing  a  union  with  Christian.1* 
of  other  denominations,  where  the  disagreement  is  not  more 
solemnly  or  strongly  expressed,  nor  on  any  more  important 
or  practical  points.  The  foundation  of  the  protest  is  dis- 
agreement in  judgment — difference  in  sentiment  or  opinion 
between  the  protestor  and  the  court.  Our  Synod,  by  their 
practice,  say  then  that  want  of  unanimity  or  agreement  in 
opinion  or  sentiment  is  not  a  .sufficient  cause  to  break  off  or 
interrupt  church  fellowship.     If  so,  should  it  prevent  it?" 

But  lest  any  one  should  suggest  that  this  matter  of 
slavery  was  not  worth  dividing  about,  the  writer  adds: 

;i  2sow  1  challenge  any  one  to  produce  any  other  indi- 
dividual  sin  so  frequently  and  so  strongly  condemned  in  the 
word  of  God  as  that  of  oppression.  J  am  persuaded  that  h 
will  not  be  found  in  those  points  of  doctrine  or  practice  that 
are  or  ever  have  been  made  grounds  of  difference  between 
any  of  those  denominations  [now  endeavoring  to  form  an 
organic  union.-    I  will  go  further,  and  sav  that   I  am  not 


HISTORICAL    VIEW    or   THE   SUBJECT.  •       51 

aware  of  any  such  point  of  difference  between  any  of  the 
denominations  holding  the  fundamental  and  leading  doc- 
trines of  the  Keformed  Churches  of  Holland  and  Scotland, 
and  probably  I  might  add  others." 

Hence  the  inference  is  obvious  that  the  A  ssociate 
Synod  tolerated  among  themselves  men  holding  certain 
great  errors,  whilst  at  the  same  time  they  were  testi- 
fying against  and  excluding  from  communion  large 
bodies  of  Christians  for  what  arejadmitted \  to  be  "less 
errors."  Nor  were  these  protestors  obscure  men ;  far 
from  it.  "They  have  nearly  all,"  adds  this  writer, 
*-  been  honored  with  the  special  confidence  of  the 
Synod.  One  was  continued  for  many  years  a  professor 
of  theology ,  the  authorized  instructor  of  the  principles 
of  the  church,  to  those  preparing  for  the  work  of  the 
ministry.  Another  was  continued  clerk  to  Synod,  as 
long  as  he  remained  in  the  fellowship  of  the  church. 
Another  has  been  recently  chosen  by  Synod  to  the 
office  of  professor  of  theology,  and  the  other  has  been 
honored  with  the  special  confidence  of  Synod,  to  ne- 
gotiate the  terms  of  the  proposed  union.  And  not 
one  of  these  has  ever  withdrawn  his  protest,  or  inti- 
mated to  Synod  a  change  of  sentiment." 

The  conclusion  to  which  the  writer  is  led  is  then 
stated  as  follows: 

"  ]S"ow,  to  me  it  appears,  and  I  think,  to  all  who  will  take 
a  candid  view  of  this  matter,  that  consistency  both  on  the 
part  of  the  Synod,  and  more  especially  on  the  part  of  these 
protesting  brethren  and  fathers,  would  require  them  not  to 
suffer  matters  of  minor  importance  to  prevent  a  union, 
so  far   as  we  are  concerned,   while   we    overlook  matters 


o'l        HISTORICAL   VIEW   of  Tin:   sfiukot. 

«.f  the  greatest  importance.  Or  els©,  we  should  dismiss  nil 
attempts  to  unite  witli  others,  and  set  about  reconciling  these 
contradictory  views  among  ourselves.  Let  us  not  '  be  =train- 
ing  at  a  gnat,  and  swallowing  a  camel. ;  " 

Another  illustration  in  the  Associate  Church,  is 
brought  to  our  notice  in  the  following  paragraph. 
Says  the  same  writer  : 

••  At  the  meeting  of  (the  Associate)  Synod  held  in  Xenia. 
O.,  May,  1845,  the  question  was  raised  whether  Christians 
could,  consistently  with  a  proper  discharge  of  their  duty, 
vote  for  men  of  known  immoral  character  for  civil  offices. 
A  committee  was  appointed  to  bring  in  a  report  on  this 
subject.  This  committee  reported  by  their  chairman,  Mr- 
Joseph  Scroggs,  which  report  was  read,  considered,  amended 
and  adopted  by  the  Synod,  without  a  dissenting  voice  rc- 
eorded  against  it.  Hence  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  expressing 
the  principles  of  she  Associate  Church  on  that  subject.  The 
report  will  be.  found  at  large  in  the  Ifpangelieal  Repository^ 
vol.  4,  pp.  86,  37." 

This  solemn  act  of  the  Associate  Synod,  we  are 
assured,  was  utterly  disregarded  in  the  Associate 
Church  by  many,  "  both  ministers  snd  people."  It  is 
declared  to  be  a  '•-  notorious  fact,"  that  they  voted  for 
the  vilest  characters,  "  profane  swearers.  Sabbath  break- 
ers, duelists,  murderers,  whoremongers*,  gamblers',  &c." 
Yet,  as  in  the  case  of  the  forementioned  protests,  these 
persons  remained  in  undisturbed  quiet  in  the  com- 
munion of  the  church,  while,  if  the  same  persons 
should  venture  to  sing,  in  family  worship,  one  of  "  Dr. 
Watts'  Psalms/'  they  would  at  once  be  brought  to 
trial,  and  if  persisting  in  their  sin,  excommunica/<</  / 
This  able  writer  saw,  in  some  measure,  this  glaring 
inconsistency.     "  Can  it  be  shown,"  he  inquires,  "  by 


HISTORICAL   VIEW   OF    THE    SUBJECT.  53 

any  passage,  more  plain  ami  unequivocal,  that  it  is 
contrary  to  the  Divine  mind  to  sing  in  praises  to  God 
other  psalms  and  hymns  than  what  we  find  in  the  in- 
spired volume,  than  that  it  is  to  vote  for  immoral  and 
wicked  men  for  our  civil  rulers  ?  I  have  no  doubt 
myself,  that  both  are  wrong.  l>ut  if  i  were  called  to 
express  an  opinion  which  were  the  greater  of  the  two 
errors,  I.  could  not  hesitate  in  deciding  that  voting  for. 
or  choosing  as  civil  riders,  immoral  men.  icai  palpably 
the  greater  of  tin-  i»:<>.  To  make  the  less  error  a  term 
of  communion,  while  the  greater  is  overlooked,  is  very 
like  what  is  meant  by  straining  at  a  gnat.  &e." 

The  same  able  writer  acknowledges  great  differences 
oc  the  subject  of  Temperance — the  widespread  crimes 
of  manufacturing  and  retailing  as  a  beverage  -liquid 
poison."  thus  murdering  both  soul  and  body.:,:  On 
such  topics  he  says  :  --The  Associate  Church  have  for 
many  years  tolerated  among  themselves  the  widest  dif- 
ferences, leading  to  '•protests'  and  severe  denunciations. 
Yet  they  continued  to  commune  together,  while  at  the 
same  time  they  made  'less  ew'ors'  a  term  of  communion, 
and  on  the  ground  of  those  -less  errors'  excluded  from 
the  table  of  the  Lord  large  bodies  of  the  processed  dis- 
ciples of  Christ ! " 

Of  these  less  errors,  he  particularly  mentions  --the 
singing  of  other  psalms  and  hymns  than  these  wo  find 
in  the  sacred  volume." 

The  remarkable  facts  which  have  been   presented 

*  Weregret  to,  say  that  the  U.  P..  *'  Testimony'*  is  entirely  pilcnt  on  this 
•Lruadiiil  topic — the  ioavi'ul  cry  of  thirty  tif.6USO)id  souls  every  year  perishing; 
*round  them.  "  Secret  societies"  aro  bad,  and  against  them  they  testify— .- 
M}t  had  they  no  conipaesioa  for  tfve  poor  victims  of  uitenjperaucg  ? 


54  HISTORICAL    VIEW   OF    THE    SUBJECT. 

are  specially  important,  because  they  are  "tlte  wounds 
of  a  friend."  They  demonstrate  how  easy  it  is  for 
bodies  of  men,  even  of  professed  Christians,  to  make  a 
large  show  of  disciplinary  rules,  while  at  the  same  time 
in  practice  they  utterly  ignore  and  despise  them. 
Whether  these  "  protesters"  against  the  Associate 
i;Act  making  slaveholding  a  term  of  communion," 
several  of  whom  entered  the  United  Presbyterian  body 
at  its  origin,  were  required  to  repudiate  their  protest 
and  concur  with  "  the  Declarations"  of  the  ';  Testimony" 
on  the  same  topics,  we  know  not.  But  the  fact  which 
is  most  important  to  our  purpose  is  this  :  That  for 
years  the  protestants,  who  were  undeniably  not  to  be 
regarded  as  "baues,"  were  not  merely  tolerated  in  full 
communion,  but  several  of  them  placed  or  kept  in  the 
most  honored,  responsible  and  influential  offices  in  the 
Associate  Church  !  From  1831  to  1848,  when  the 
foregoing  facts  were  made  public — and  we  may  add. 
until  1858,  when  the  Associate  Synod  united  with 
the  Associate  Reformed  to  constitute  the  United 
Presbyterian  body,  the  voice  of  the  Associate  Church 
was  any  thing  else  than  in  strict  conformity  with  the 
professed  "principles"  of  the  United  body.  Whether 
the  same  laxity  of  discipline  shall  continue  in  the  Uni- 
ted Church — the  same  rigid,  east-iron  pretensions  in 
words,  and  the  same  looseness  in  conduct,  time  alone  Will 
demonstrate.*''' 

*Rev.  David  It.  Kerr  informed  the  public  in  I860,  that  the  United  Presby- 
terian Church  "administers  it  (the  Declaration  of  th8  Testimony  on  slave- 
holding)  as  a  term  of  communion.''  U.  P.  Quarterly,  Jan.  p.  110.  This  wos 
two  years  alter  the  organization  of  the  United  body.  If  this  was  so.  it  vtc.t 
?ery  clifi.'orsin.t  fryTn  the  courso  pursued  by  the  Associate  Synod, 


HISTORICAL   VIEW   OF   THE   SUBJECT.  55 

Such  then  is  the  "great  cloud  of  witnesses"  against 
the  dogma  of  "  close  communion :"  John  Calvin,  John 
Knox  and  his  compeers,  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  the  Fathers  and  others  of  the 
Associate  Eeformed  Synod,  John  T.  Pressly,  author  of 
-Church  Fellowship," or  " Close  Communion,"  and  the 
Associate  Synod  in  its  long  forbearance  with  the  open 
and  solemn  "protest"  of  some  of  its  greatest  and  most 
honored  ministers,  the  very  pillars  of  the  body — a 
protest,  be  it  observed,  against  making  slaveholding  a 
term  of  communion. 

As  to  the  present  position  of  the  Presbyterian 
churches  of  Scotland  and  Ireland,  the  following  is  the 
testimony  of  the  Rev.  R.  D.  Harper,  D.  D.,  of  the  XL 
P.  Church,  when  some  years  since  traveling  in  those 
countries.  He  says:  "None  of  these  churches  are 
identified  with  us  in  principle  or  practice  on  the  sub- 
ject of  communion,  or  secret  societies,  or  covenanting. 
There  is,  in  fact,  but  one  point  of  strict  identity,  so  far 
as  our  distinctive  principles  are  concerned,  and  that  is 
slavery." 

Of  course  those  churches  know  nothing  of  the  Pro- 
crustean bed  of  the  "Testimony." 

As  to  psalmody,  Dr.  H.  says :  "  In  all  the  congrega- 
tions in  which  we  have  worshiped,  both  in  Scotland 
and  Ireland,  with  the  single  exception  of  Dr.  Cook's 
church,  of  Belfast,  the  paraphrases  and  hymns  have 
been  sung." 
6 


56  APPEAL   TO   SCRIPTURE   AND   REASON 

CHAPTER  V. 

APPEAL    TO   SCRIPTURE  AND  PEASOy. 

ET  us  now  proceed  to  examine  the  merits  of  the 
close  communion  theory  in  the  light  of  Scripture 
and  Reason.  "  Fathers"  were  but  fallible  men — Sy- 
nods may  err — but  God's  word,  interpreted  by  sound 
reason  under  the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  can- 
not deceive  us.     "To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony." 

We  have  seen  that  a  "credible  profession  of  saving 
faith  in  Christ,"  or  as  it  is  sometimes  expressed,  "vis- 
ible Christianity,"  or  "visible  discipleship."  with  the 
corresponding  fruits,  as  opportunity  is  afforded,  is  the 
foundation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  0.  S.  Presbyterian 
Church  j  and  our  pastors  and  sessions  invite  all  such 
visible  Christians,  or  disciples  of  Christ,  to  partake  with 
us  of  the  affecting  memorials  of  his  dying  love,  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  the  "Lord's  Supper,"  not  our  supper 
— that  it  is  spread  for  his  friends,  the  children  of  the 
same  family  of  which  he  is  the  elder  brother;  and 
when  such  friends  and  followers  of  Christ,  who  make 
a  credible  profession  of  love  and  obedience  to  him,  seek 
to  sit  with  us  in  these  "heavenly  places," — honored 
disciples  whom  he,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  tenderly 
loves — wc  dare  not  reject  whom  lie  has  received  ;  we 
dare  not  say,  "  Stand  back,  for  we  are  more  fit  for  this 
service  than  you ;  and  we  cannot  suffer  you  to  come  to 
his  feast,  nor  to  obey  his  dying  command." 


APPEAL    TO    SCRIPTURE    AND    REASON.  &1 

This  concise  statement  of  the  true  scriptural  doc- 
trine of  communion,  as  we  understand  it.  at  once  dis- 
pels much  of  the  mist  in  which  it  is  sometimes  involved, 
and  exposes  sundry  strange  misstatements  on  the  topic. 
For  example,  in  replying  to  a  correspondent  of  the 
Presbyterian  Banner,  Dr.  D.  Kerr  represents  our  doc- 
trine as  teaching  that  -  sealing  ordinances  of  the  church 
her  highest  privileges  and  observances,  arc  to  he  thrown 
open  to  all  who  rail  themselves  Christians."*  This,  as  he 
truly  observes,  would  admit  the  grossest  errorists,  even 
Socinians  and  Universalists.  But  we  reply,  do  such 
persons  exhibit  "a  credible  profession  of  saving  faith 
in  Christ?"  Have  they  a '-visible  discipleship  with 
proper  fruits  Vf  Dr.  Kerr's  statement  is  plainly  highly 
injurious  to  a  sister  church,  a  mere  caricature  of  the 
truth. 

Again,  the  same  writer  in  attempting  to  vindicate 
his  rigid  theory  of  communion  in  the  presence  of  the 
U.  P.  Synod  of  Scotland,  against  what  he  calls  "the 
spirit  of  independency,"  "which,  he  says,  is  dominant 
in  this  country,  even  in  churches  theoretically  Presb}T- 
terian," — justifies  his  rigid  exclusive  principles,  be- 
cause they  are  opposed  to  those  which,  he  says,  "appear 
to  have  as  much  respect,  for  error  as  for  truth" — "and 
virtually  make  every  man  the  judge  of  Ms  own  aualif- 
f'otions  for  church  privileges,  and  make  the  discipline 
of  the  church  the  sport  of  individual  and  popular  ca- 
price." 

Now  we  need  not  say  to  any  intelligent,  well  informed 
person,  whether  in  or  out  of  the  Old  School  Presbyte- 

*  Uniled  Ffokbft&ia'fi,  Jan.  27, 1804. 


58  APPEAL   TO    SCRIPTURE   AND   REASON. 

rian  connexion,  that  these  statements,  especially  as 
publicly  made  in  a  presence .  where  no  defense  could 
follow,  were  very  gross  misstatements,  so  far  at  least 
as  our  church  is  concerned.  Our  theory,  as  stated 
above,  is  "  a  credible  profession,"  "  visible  discipleship." 
" Visible"  to  whom  ?  To  each  applicant  for  himself? 
Certainly  not — but  to  the  proper  officers  of  the  church ; 
"  credible"  to  those  whose  province  it  is  to  guard  against 
the  profanation  of  divine  ordinances.  How  amazing 
then  that  even  good  men  should  permit  themselves  to 
talk  in  this  random  style,  apparently  ignoring  that 
scriptural  characteristic  of  the  pious,  that  "  he  back- 
biteth  not  with  his  tongue,  nor  taketh  up  an  evil  report 
against  his  neighbor." 

The  simple  statement  of  the  true  theory  of  commun- 
ion, as  given  above,  also  neutralizes  and  exposes  the 
charge  made  in  the  "Testimony,"  if,  as  we  suppose, 
it  refers  to  the  0.  S.  Presbyterians,  viz.,  "that  many 
who  profess  the  Presbyterian  name  *  *  *  admit  to 
occasional  communion  the  members  of  other  Christian 
churches,  *  *  *  simply  on  the  ground  of  their 
membership  in  said  churches"*  But  this  is  a  great 
mistake — for  our  theory  is,  not  "membership  in  other 
churches,"  but  "visible  or  credible  discipleship."  A 
man  may  be  "a  member  of  another  church;"  but  if 
his  character  and  conduct  do  not  give  credibility  to  his 
profession,  our  theory,  by  its  very  terms,  excludes  him 
from  occasional  communion. 

In  the  same  short  and  easy  way,  viz.,  by  a  simple 
statement  of  the  truth,  we  solve  what  seemi  to  Pr,  D. 

*  Testimony,  p.  30. 


APPEAL   TO    SCRIPTURE   AND   REASON.  59 

Kerr  a  very  great  difficulty^  which  he  presents  as  fol- 
lows : 

Suppose  a  member  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  had  been 
adjudged  guilty  of  heresy,  and  formally  excluded  from  its 
membership.  He  might  be  an  Episcopalian  ;  he  might  be 
an  Arminian  ;  or  he  might  be  even  a  Universalist  or  Unita- 
rian ;  but  what  matter  ;  although  by  the  judicial  authority 
of  the  church  he  had  been  declared  unworthy  of  her  mem- 
bership, all  he  has  to  do  is  to  connect  himself  with  another 
denomination,  and  go  back  at  his  pleasure  and  enjoy  the 
highest  privileges  of  the  church  from  which  lio  had  been 
formally  cut  oft*.     Is  that  s;ood  order  ?  "::" 

But  the  good  Dr.  goes  quite  too  fast.  A  "  credible 
profession  of  saving  faith."  ;C  visible  Christianity  or 
discipleship."  is  our  theory.  Does  Dr.  Kerr  teach  that 
this  admits  :;  the  Universalist  or  Unitarian'''  to  the 
Lord's  table  ?  Suppose  that  any  errorist  of  any  sort 
had  been  ''declared  unworthy  of  membership''  in  our 
churches,  would  the  mere  fact  of  his  having  been  re- 
ceived into  another  communion  make  his  ft  profession  a 
credible  one  1"  On  the  contrary,  the  mere  fact  of  his 
exclusion  by  one  of  our  sessions,  while  it  stands  unre- 
pealed, must  be  an  insuperable  bar  to  his  reception 
among  us  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  Thus  this  disciplin- 
ary puzzle,  with  which  the  Dr.  seems  so  greatly  pleased, 
vanishes  in  the  light  of  a  simple  statement  of  truth. 

The  only  other  example  of  these  loose  and  injurious 
misstatements,  to  which  we  now  direct  attention,  is 
found  in  the  volume  on  "  Church  Fellowship."  Thus 
Dr.  P.   tells  us,      ':  The    advocates  of  the  theory  of 

*  r.ut.J  Presbyterian,  Jan,  27, 1864, 
8* 


60  APPEAL    TO    SCRIPTURE   AND    REASON. 

catholic  communion,  maintain  that  all  evangelical 
churches  *  *  *  ■  *  should  unite  in  the  partici- 
pation of  the  Lord's  Supper."  Again,  he  quotes 
an  Act  passed  in  1790  by  the  "fathers  who  prepared 
and  adopted  the  standards"  of  the  17.  P.  Church, 
and  which,  he  says,  condemns  "  the  scheme  now 
designated  as  'catholic  communion/"  i.  e.  the  Act 
condemns  "the  scheme  of  communion  called  Lati- 
tudinarian,  which  unites  all  paftfjss  of  professed 
Gh/Pistvcms  in  the  fullest  communion,  on  the  footing 
only  of  those  general  principles  that  some  distinguish 
by  the  name  of  essentials. "" 

Now  wc  cannot  receive  these  statements  as  a  correct 
exhibition  of  the  true  doctrine  of  li  catholic  com- 
munion," because  they  are  much  too  general.  Our 
theory  does  not  include  "  all  parties  of  professed 
Christians."  Nor  does  it  embrace  all  who  call  them- 
selves members  of  "  evangelical  churches."  Far  from 
it.  Dr.  1\  himself,  in  the  early  part  of  his  work,  gives 
a  much  more  accurate  statement  of  our  theory,  thus  : 
"According  to  one  theory,  the  church  should  re- 
ceive into  her  fellowship  a  J/  of  every  denomination, 
who  iii  the  judgfflent  of  elbarity  arc  to  be  considered 
Christians.")"  To  this  statement  of  our  doctrine  we 
make  no  serious  objection.  But  observe  the  qualifying 
clause  :  "  in  the  judgment  of  charity."  Of  whose 
'•'judgment" — of* whose  "  charity?"     Their  own  ?     So 

-Church  Fellowship,  pp.  ~A-  ■""• 

f  Church  Fellowship,  p.  81.  In  the  firat  edition  in  the  newspaper  form,  it 
reads  as  follows:  "All  who  in  the  judgment  of  charity  are  to  be  con- 
sidered Christians,  regardless  of  any  difference.  &c."  The  words  "  of  every 
denomination,''  are  omitted, 


APPEAL    TO    SCRIPTURE    AND    REASON.  61 

says  Dr.  Kerr —  "all  who  call  themselves  Christians" 
— "every  man  the  judge  of  his  own  qualifications." 
But  the  author  of  "Church  Fellowship"  was  better 
informed;  and  though  in  a  subsequent  part  of  his 
argument  he  seems  to  have  forgotten  what  he  had 
said,  yet  in  stating  as  above,  near  ihe  beginning  of 
his  book,  the  "  conflicting  views"  of  the  two  bodies, 
he  discriminates  very  fairly.  Observe,  too,  that  other 
qualifying  clause,  "  all  of  every  denomination  who  are 
to  be  considered  Christians,"  i.  r.  m  the  judgment  of 
charily.  This  is  very  different  from  "  all  parties  of 
professed  Christians."  If  any  one  or  more  of  these 
"  churches"  should  adopt  the  notion  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  a  ::  converting  ordinance,"  as  among  the 
Congrcgationalists  in  the  days  of  Jonathan  Edwards ; 
and  on  such  grounds  should  invite  all  to  partake, 
whether  saint  or  sinner ;  or  if  any  of  these  churches 
should  encourage  the  ignorant,  the  scandalous,  the 
profane,  to  become  communicants  j  in  such  cases,  "the 
judgment  of  charity"  would,  of  course,  not  include  in 
its  embrace  such  "parties  of  professed  Christians." 
Here  must  interpose  the  lawful  authority  of  the 
church  officers ;  there  must  be  a  discrimination 

With  these  explanations  of  the  doctrine  which  we 
conceive  to  be  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  we  proceed  to 
examine  the  theory  of  "  Church  Fellowship"  adopted 
in  the  P.  P.  Church.     As  stated  by  J>\\  V.   it  is  this  : 

"The  church  cannot,  without  betraying  her  trust, 
receive  into  her  communion  those  who  are  unwilling  to 


(12         APPEAL  TO   SC&IPTUBE   AND   REASON. 

receive  lier  testimony  for  the  truth,  and  refuse  to  sub- 
mit to  her  authority."* 

This  dogma  is  further  explained  by  the  author  to 
mean  that  the  U.  P."  Church  has  -no  right  to  receive 
into  her  fellowship  one  :;:  *  *  who  refuses  to 
observe  awjthmg  which  Christ  has  commanded,"  i,  e. 
as  Dr.  P\s.  particular  branch  of  the  church  interprets 
his  " commands. "  "  The  church,"  he  adds,  '''may  not  be 
silent  in  relation  to  any  one  truth  which  God  has  made 
known  to  her."  "  She  should  enforce  the  observance 
of  oil  that  Christ  has  commanded,"  because  "  she  can- 
not connive  at  the  rejection  of  any  one  truth,"  &c,  &c. 

These  sweeping  sentences  of  exclusion,  we  need 
hardly  say,  mean  much  more  than  the  obvious  truth 
taught  by  all  orthodox  Christians,  viz.,  that  the 
church  should  diligently  teach  all  the  principles  and 
precepts  revealed  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and,  of 
course,  she  must  teach  them  as  she  understands  them. 
The  point  of  difference  lies  in  the  practical  enforce* 
mentj  viz..  by  exclusion  from  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Argument  I. 

It  may  be  sufficient  to  show  the  utter  impossibility 
of  practically  enforcing  this  dogma,  simply  to  state  its 
legitimate  consequences.  It  excludes  almost  everybody 
—  for  scarcely  any  two  persons  agree  in  every  "  one 
truth"  as  taught  in  the  Bible.  As  regards  the  U.  P. 
Church,  iC  it  shuts  .the  door  in  the  face,  not  only  of 
every  Old  and  New  School  Presbyterian,  but  of  al- 
most every  Scotch.  Irish  and  English  Presbyterian,  as 

*Pas;e  31, 


APPEAL   TO    SCRIPTURE    AND    REASON.  (5$ 

well  as  nearly  all  of  all  other  deruyminatioris  in  Christ- 
endom, by  the  single  article  in  tin;  Testimony  forbid- 
ding the  devotional  compositions  of  uninspired  men/' 
And.  indeed,  it  excludes  Dr.  P.  himself,  for  he  sings 
Rouse,  which  is  in  large  part,  uninspired.  Move  than 
this,  we  have  the  testimony  of  one  of  the  most  active 
and  talented  of  the  United  Presbyterian  ministers,  de- 
flaring  that  some  of  themselves  ';  do  not  believe  the 
Westminster  Confession  in  the  chapter  on  creation  in  its 
geological  bearings — others  do  not  believe  every  item 
of  that  Confession  on  the  subject  of  marriage — others 
disbelieve  it  on  millennarianism — a  large  majority  do  not 
believe  the  doctrine  taught  on  c  social  covenanting' — 
many  believe  and  practice  contrary  to  the  '  Testimony' 
on  psalmody. "  And  while  some  part  of  the  Confession 
and  Testimony  is  believed  by  every  member,  not  one- 
half  of  the  U.  P.  Church  believe  every  part  of  them. 
Thus,  this  doctrine,  if  rigidly  enforced,  would  exclude 
a  large  proportion  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Chnrch 
herself.  And  the  theory  as  advocated  by  Dr.  P.  re- 
quiring the  adoption  of  every  '-'one  truth"  in  the  Bible, 
would  inevitably  reduce  the  membership  of  the  U.  P. 
Church  to  e>ne  solitary  self-righteous  soul  (or  at  best, 
to  a  few  such  souls),  which  it  is  presumed  would  be 
the  closest  communion  conceivable.""'  These  are  tho 
declarations  of  a  "  friend,"  a  minister  of  Christ,  in  re- 
gard to  the  situation  of  things  in  his  own  denomina- 
tion. And  they  show  most  conclusively  how  easy  it 
is  for  men  in  their  excessive  zeal  for  certain  peculiari- 

*  See  Rev.  W,  C.  M'Cune'a  Review  of  Church  Fellowship,  p.  24.    Mr.  M"C.  is 
the  pastor  of  a  U.  P.  church  in  Cincinnati. 


<U  APPEAL    TO    SCRIPTURE    AND    REASON. 

ties  to  draw  the  bands  so  tight  that  they  snap  as- 
sunder  like  flax  before  the  lire. 

The  "Testimony,"  as  before  shown,  is  rather  more 
guarded,  requiring  of  members  a  "  profession  of  all  its 
(the  church's)  principles,  if  they  are  professors  at  all.''" 
And  it  is  due  to  candor  to  say  that  in  several  places  of 
"  Church  Fellowship,"  Dr.  P.,  though  very  inconsist- 
ently, seems  to  teach  the  same  limited  theory.  jTlius,  he 
says,  the  u  church  presents  her  creed" — "  the  form  of 
sound  words,  to  such  as  desire  to  enter  her  fellowship" 
— "a  summary  of  what  she  understands  to  be  the  great 
doctrines  of  the  Bible."  Again,  he  speaks  of  "her 
Confession  of  Faith,"  "  this  testimony  for  the  truth," 
"  the  creed  of  the  church,  a  summary  of  the  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints/'  and  he  adds,  "she  is  bound  to 
welcome  him  who  unites  in  this  testimony  for  the  truth 
to  the  enjoyment  of  her  fellowship."  How  it  is  possible 
to  reconcile  these  statements  with  the  high-toned  theory 
which  requires  union  in  every  "one  truth,"  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  observance  of  all  truths  taught  in  the 
Bible,  as  Dr.  P.  elsewhere  teaches,  we  do  not  pretend 
to  explain.  It  is  impossible  to  hold  both  these  forms 
of  the  "close  communion"  theory.  For  surely  "the 
Westminster  Confession,  which  is  the  creed  of  the 
TJ.  P.  Church,"  does  not  include  every  "  one  truth" 
taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

The  "Testimony,"  too,  argues  upon  the  absurdity  of 
holding  that  "  there  arc  some  truths  which  Christ  has 
made  it  the  duty  of  the  church  to  profess,  though 
she    may   not   exe?'eise  her  discipline   in    maintaining 

*  Pago  27, 


APPEAL    TO    SCRIPTURE    AND    PEASOX.  65 

these  truths."  This  would  seem  to  cover  Dr.  P's. 
broadest  ground.  But  as  its  framers  seem  to  come 
down  from  this  high  theory,  aud  settle  upon  the  theory 
of  union  iu  "all  the  principles,"  we  propose  to  ac- 
cept this  as  the  acknowledged  doctrine  of  the  U.  P. 
body. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

APPEAL    TO  SCRIPTURE   AND    REASON. 

{Continued). 

* 

W.S  the  U.  P.  theory  of  "close  communion"  taught 
s=aa  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ?  We  concede  that  the 
principle,  if  true,  is  equally  applicable  to  all  denomi- 
nations of  Christians — but  for  the  sake  of  distinctness 
we  limit  the  argument  to  the  U.  P.  body. 

Aliou.ment   II. 

We  derive  our  second  argument  from  the  example 
of  our  Lord  in  the  original  institution  of  the  supper. 
Much  is  said,  in  defending  "close  communion,"  on  the 
importance  of  "the  preservation  of  the  purity  of  the 
church,"  and  it  is  alleged  to  be  very  inconsistent  to 
admit  to  her  communion  those  who  arc  not  "  pro- 
fessors of  all  her  principles,"  for  it  is  "  the  duty  of 
the  church  to  profess  the  truths  (all  the  truths)  of 
Christ,  and  exercise  government  arid  discipline  in 
maintaining  them."" 

*Seo  thu  Testimony. 


66  APPEAL    10    SCRIPTURE    AND    REASON. 

The  author  of  "  Church  Fellowship1 '  is  equally  ex- 
plicit. Thus  he  says,  "  Where  men  are  not  agreed  in 
relation  to  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,  *  * 
the}'  cannot  hold  communion  in  the  profession  of  the 
truth."  "  Those  who  refuse  adherence  to  her  pro- 
fession," (viz.,  as  elsewhere  explained,)  "of  all  that 
Christ  has  commanded" — "to  receive  them  into  her 
fellowship  would  be  unfaithfulness  to  him,  &c." 
Again,  "  to  maintain  her  purity,  *  *  *  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  church  to  see  that  those  whom  she  admits 
to  her  fellowship  receive  and  hold  fast  the  doctrines 
which  are  wholesome,  &c."  "  She  may  not  be  silent 
in  relation  to  any  one  truth,  &c."  "She  is  just  as 
truly  responsible  to  her  exalted  King  for  her  fidelity  in 
ruling  as  in  teaching — in  enforcing  the  laws  of  Christ's 
house,  &c." 

Such  is  Dr.  P's.  theory.  It  enjoins  extreme  care  on 
the  part  of  the  church  to  secure  the  profession  of  all 
the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  Scripture,  of  those  who 
are  received  into  her  fellowship,  and  to  neglect  these 
precautions  is  plainly  indicated  as  conniving  at  a 
system  of  error,  the  church  thus  partaking  of  the  sin 
of  the  communicant. 

But  were  there  any  such  minute,  specific  terms  as 
these  enforced  at  the  original  institution  ?  We  may 
affirm  with  perfect  confidence"  that  our  blessed  Lord  has 
set  us  in  this  respect  an  example  which,  in  principle  at 
least,  is  highly  instructive  under  all  circumstances  of 
the  church.     What,  then,  do  we  learn  ? 

1.  The  disciples  had  not  received  ('hr<  stain  baptism, 


APPEAL    TO    SCRIPTURE    AXD    REASON.  67 

It  is  probable  (not  certain)  that  they  had  received  the 
baptism  of  John.  But  that  was  merely  an  introductory 
rite.  It  was  not  administered  in  :-  the  name  of  the 
Father,  8011  and  Holy  Ghost, "  because  this  would  rep- 
resent our  Lord  as  having  been  baptized  in  his  own 
name.  Of  course,  the  disciples  when  they  partook  of 
their  first  communion,  had  not  received  the  iilitiatory 
seal  of  the  covenant. 

2:  The  disciples  evidently  had  very  incorrect  views 
of  ';  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  and  the  way  of 
salvation  through  him."*  It  is  certain  that  they  did 
not  yet  recognize  him  as  a  divine  being,  and  in  regard 
to  his  great  mission  as  the  atoning  sacrifice,  "  the 
Lamb  of  God/'  as  well  as  the  method  in  which  the 
sinner  becomes  united  to  him  and  partakes  of  the 
benefits  of  his  death,  their  ignorance  was  very  great. 
Many  of  our  little  children  are  better  informed  on 
these  topics. 

3.  As  a  consequence,  their  notions  of  the  nature  of 
his  kingdom  were  extremely  contrary  to  the  truth. 
They  still  clung  to  their  old  Jewish  prejudices  in  re- 
gard to  the  temporal  reign  of  their  Messiah — that  his 
mission  was  to  re-establish  "the  throne  of  David" 
(literally),  to  subdue  all  the  enemies  of  the  Jews, 
to  restore  the  golden  age  of  Solomon,  &c.;  &c.  Of 
course,  they  were  in  great  darkness  on  the  subject  of 
Christ's  spiritual  mission  and  kingdom,  exhibiting  a 
degree   of  ignorance  on    such  topics  as  these,  which 

"Church  Fellowship,  i).  68.    Dr, P.  reasons   "that   such   persons  1  1 
sail  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jcsu  -"  in  truth, 


68  APPEAL    TO    SCRIPTURE   AND    REASON. 

would  be  unbecoming  iu  an  ordinary  member  of  almost 
any  evangelical  cliurcli  of  the  present  day. 

Such,  in  brief,  were  the  men*  whom  the  best  of  all 
teachers,  after  three  years  of  the  best  instruction,  re- 
ceived to  the  Lord's  table.  The  argument  does  not 
require  us  to  affirm  that  church  officers  would  now  be 
justifiable  in  admitting  to  communion  persons  so  greatly 
in  error.  Just  as  we  would  not  press  the  example  of 
our  blessed  Lord  at  Cana  of  Galilee,  as  an  argument 
at  the  present  day  in  defense  of  wine  as  a  common 
beverage.  But  whatever  may  be  conceded  to  the  altered 
circumstances  of  the  church,  whatever  may  be  clue  to 
the  omniscience  of  Christ,  it  is  impossible  to  conceal 
the  broad  contrast  between  his  infallible  example,  and 
that  theory  which  demands  the  adoption  of  thirty -three 
chapters  of  the  Confession,  with  tl\£  addition  of  eighteen 
"  Declarations  of  the  Testimony."  As  to  the  teaching 
of  "  Church  Fellowship,"  it  is  at  the  farthest  anti- 
podes from  that  of  the  Saviour,  requiring,  as  we  have 
■seen,  agreement  in  all  revealed  truth,  "all  that  Christ 
has  commanded."  How  does  the  unerring  "  pattern 
showed  in  the  mount"  frown  upon  such  a  scheme  as 
the  following.  Speaking  of  one  who  i(  refuses  to 
forsake  a   communion  which  is  inconsistent  with  the 

*  Judas  seems  tu  have  left  the  company  before  the  Lord's  Supper.  Com- 
pare John  13 :  00.. with  Luke  22  :  20.  Ou  the  nature  of  John's  baptism  as 
distinct  from  Christian  baptism,  Dr.  Scott,  on  Matt.  3  :  5,  says,  "  We  should 
not  consider  John's  baptism  as  the  same  with  Christian  baptism,  but  rather 
as  an  institution  for  the  time  being  and  an  introduction  to  the  change  : 
when  the  new  dispensation  should  be  openly  established.  We  cannot  sup- 
pose that  Jesus  was  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  '  Father,  Son  and  Iloly 
Ghost.'  Our  Lord,"  he  again  says,  "  had  spoken  of  his  sufferings,  death  and 
resurrection;  but  the  apostles  were  ton  Minded  by  carnal  prejudices  to  un- 
derstand his  meaning.-' 


APPEAL    TO    SCRIPTURE    AND    REASON.  69 

profession   which   she   (the    church)  makes/'    Dr.  P. 

says  : 

"  VVnil£  he  remains  in  such  connexion,  ";:"  *  *  the 
chutfcn  that  would  he  faithful  to  her  Lord  must  regard  him 
as  one  who  in  some  respects  does  not  call  upon  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  in  a  scriptural  manner  —  as  one  jvho  in 
some  respects  walketh  disorderly.  *  *  *  Therefore, 
the  church  may  not  he  a  partaker  of  his  sin  by  receiving 
him  into  her  fellowship."* 

Observe  the  emphatic  clauses.  It  is  enough  that 
any  oue,  however  otherwise  exemplary  in  faith  and 
practice,  if  he  is  guilty  of  "refusing  to  forsake"  another 
connexion — that  alone  stamps  hini  as  in  "  some  re- 
spects" unfit  for  a  U.  P.  communion  table.  These 
■■somr  respects"  may  be  so  imperceptible  to  the  ordinal 
vision  as  to  be  purely  microscopic — -scarcely,  if  at  all 
discernible,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Reformed  Presby- 
terians and  some  other  denominations.  But  no  matter, 
••  the  applicant  chooses  to  adhere  to  a  system  which  is. 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  inconsistent  with  the  truth" 
{%.  e.  with  our  U.  P.  notions  of  the  truth).  Ergo,  we 
•:  may  not  be  partakers  of  his  sinP  Observe,  "  of  his 
stn" — V  by  receiving  him  into  (our)  fellowship."  And 
as  if  this  were  not  sufficient  —  as  if  to  place  himself 
and  his  theory  as  far  apart  from  the  example  of  Christ 
as  possible,  Dr.  P.,  at  the  very  opening  of  his  book, 
seriously  tells  us,  "  Those  only  should  be  received  into 
her  fellowship  whom  the  church  is  bound  to  receive 
into  her  membership."  Hence,  it  follows,  that  as  the 
obligation  in  both  cases   is   co-extensive — as  he  would 

*Ch.  Fellowship,  p.  68. 


70    APPEAL  TO  SCRIPTURE  AND  REASON. 

exclude  from  occasional  communion  all  of  other  de- 
nominations who  in  "  some  respects"  differ  from  his 
system,  so  for  the  same  reason,  such  persons  could  not 
he  received  into  membership.  Surely  the  scheme  of 
••  clpse  communion'''  of  which  these  are  the  distiguish- 
irig  features,  was  never  learned  from  the  ljps  of  the 
"G-reat  Teacher/'  nor  has  it  the  remotest  resemblance 
to  that  which  is  enforced  by  his  example.  It  is  some 
alleviation,  however,  to  know  that  the  theory  is  one 
thing — the  practice  in  the  V.  P.  body  a  very  different 
thing.  When  Old  School  Presbyterians,  Covenanters 
and  others,  make  application,  as  is  sometimes j:he  case, 
for  admission  to  a  V.  P.  church,  the  theory,  like  the 
unfortunate  prophet,  is  speedily  thrown  overboard. 

The  teaching  of  our  Divine  Master  obviously  views 
the  church  as  a  school  of  heavenly  instruction,  and  her 
members  as  "  disciples",  i.  e.  learners,  as  the  word  signi- 
iies.  The  divine  theory  is  in  direct  antagonism  to  that 
which  bars  the  entrance  to  the  church  and  her  ordi- 
nances with  Jiffy-one  chapters  of  propositions,  many 
of  them  quite  complex  and  difficult,  far  better 
suited  to  the  capacity  of  the  mature  Christian  thau  to 
the  young  beginner.  "If  they  are  professors  at  all." 
says  the  Testimony,  '•'•  and  if  their  membership  consti- 
tutes them  professors,  they  are  professors  of  all  its 
(the  church's)  principles."*  Yet  this  extravagant 
doctrine  is  in  flat  contradiction  to  that  of  the  "His- 
torical Sketch"  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  on 
"the  admission  of  members."  For  there  we  read, 
il.  While  persons  should  strive  to  be   well   acquainted 

♦  Testimony,  p.  37. 


APPEAL  TO  SCRIPTURE  AND  REASON.    71 

with  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  yet  great  knowledge 
i-s  not  demanded,  provided  the  applicant  entertains  just 
views  of  his  condition  as  a  sinner,  and  of  Christ  as  a 
•Saviour,  and  shows  a  teachable  spirit,  &c."*  "  Great 
knowledge  is  not  demanded,"  but  does  it  not  require 
••  great  knowledge!'  to  embrace  intelligently  fifty-one 
such  elaborate  chapters  of  propositions  as  those  of 
the  Confession  and  Testimony — in  other  words,  "  all 
the  principles"  of  the  U.  P.  Church  ?  The  doctrine  of 
the  late  Associate  Reformed  Church  agrees  with  truth 
and  good  sense,  but  it  is  the  poles  apart  from  the  U. 
P.  theory,  especially  ns  developed  by  Dr.  P.  in 
-•  Church  Pel  owship." 

ARGUMENT    III. 

The  example  of  the  Apostles  will  furnish  our  third 
argument  against  the  teachings  of  the  Testimony  on 
•;  close  communion." 

In  receiving  persons  to  sealing  ordinances,  did  these 
inspired  men  settle  any  principle  which  affords  so 
much  as  the  shadow  of  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  TT. 
P.  doctrine  ?     Let  us  examine. 

1.  When  Peter  (Acts  10)  went  down  from  Joppa 
to  Cesarea,  he  found  Cornelius,  with  his  kinsmen  and 
near  friends,  waiting  to  receive  him.  To  them  he 
preached  the  gospel;  and  as  he  preached,  ilt]\c  Holy 
({host  fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the  word."  *  * 
Then   answered    Peter,   -Can  any  man   forbid  water, 

*  United  fyeshyterian,  Aug.  18(50,  p.  157.    The  "Sketch"  was. published 

by  request  of  the  General  Synod. 

7* 


72  APPEAL   TO    sCkIPTTTEE    AND    REASON. 

that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received 
the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we?"  "The  reason  assigned 
here/'  says  Dr.  Addison  Alexander,  "  is  that  those  who 
had  received  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  must  certainly 
be  fit  for  that  of  water/1  Why  should  the  sign  be  with- 
held from  those  who  were  possessed  of  the  thing  sig- 
nified ?  "And  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in 
the  nnme  of  the  Lord."  Tn  other  words,  being  "sat- 
isfied with  the  work  of  the  Spirit"  in  their  hearts,  he 
admitted  them  to  the  church. 

Now  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  pause  to  observe  that 
there  was  in  this  case  nothing  to  aive  countenance  to 
the  theory  which  requires  "  union  in  ALL  the  princi- 
ples" of  the  [J.  P.  creed — which  shuts  the  door  of  the 
church  against  all  who  differ  in  "some  respects"  from 
certain  fifty-one  chapters  of  propositions. 

2.  The  remarkable  case  of  Simon,  the  sorcerer. 
(Acts  8)  is  equally  instructive.  "Then,"  says  the 
sacred  historian,  -Simon  himself  believed  also;  and 
when  he  was  baptized,  he  continued  with  Philip,  &e." 
Of  Simon,  the  author  of  li  Church  Fellowship"  truly 
remarks,  "He  professedly  embraced  Christianity.  On 
i  lie  ground  of  this  profession  (observe,  "on  the  ground 
of  professing  to  believe")  he  was  received  into  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  church."  For  once  Dr.  P.  has  hit 
upon  the  true  doctrine  of  communion.  But  what  did  Si- 
mon profess  to  believe  ?  In  the  previous  verse  we  read 
of  others  of  the  Samaritans  who  ■■were  baptized,  both 
men  and  women,"  that  "they  believed  Philip,  preach- 
ing the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ.     Then   Simon  believed   also." 


APPEAL    TO    SCRIPTURE    AND    REASON.  73 

Here,  again,  we  have  the  simple  theory  and  prompt 
decision  of  an  inspired  teacher,  the  Evangelist  Philip. 
He  demands  ■■  faith  in  the  name' of  Jesus  Christ"  as 
the  Saviour  of  men.  and  they  thus  become  citizens  of 
his  spiritual  kingdom.  He  iocs  not  attempt  to  try 
the  heart  even  of  a  Simon  Magus — he  requires  only  "a 
credible  profession  of  Christianity,"  which,  as  Dr.  P. 
well  observes,  "in  the  sight  of  man.  gave  him  ///< 
;////;/"  to  membership.  ::  The  condition,"  says  Dr.  P.; 
•*on  which  the  church  receives  a  person  into  her  fel- 
lowship is.  '■'''■  that  he  makes  a  credible 
profession,  and  ilierefore  in  the  sight  of  man  has  a 
i!<jhl  to  be  regarded  as  a  brother  in  the  household  of 
faith.""  But  surely  this  is  a  very  different  mode  of 
receiving  men  to  sealing  ordinances  from  that  of  the 
Testimony,  viz..  belief  <tf  fifty-one  complex  chapters — or 
••  all  the  principles"  of  the  U.  P.  Church. 

In  his  remarks  upon  the  case  of  Simon,  the  author 
of  ;-  Church  Fellowship"  has  thus  conceded  that  the 
example  of  the  primitive  church  is  altogether  hostile 
to  his  theory  of  communion,  even  in  its  more  mitigated 
form.  In  fact,  he  states  in  precise  and  accurate  terms 
the  doctrine  of  •■  catholic  communion"  as  follows ; 
••  The  ground  on  which  Philip  received  Simon  into 
the  communion  of  the  church,  was  not  that  he  was  a 
true  believer,  for  that  he  was  not  ;  but  because  he  made 
a  credible  Christian  profession"  "  Then  SlMON  le- 
lieyed  ;"  there  is  his  record.  But  if  (hat  "profession" 
was  sufficient  for  apostolic  times,  why  depart  from  the 
inspired   pattern — why  insisl   on   "  all  the  U.  P.  prin- 

*  Church  Fellowship,  pp.  It.,  47. 


74    APPEAL  TO  SCRIPTURE  AND  REASON. 

ciples"  being  adopted  by  the  communicant,  especially 
why  demand  a  belief  of  every  "  one  truth  revealed  In 
the  Bible,"  as  Dr.  P.  sometimes  teaches  in  his  book  ? 
::  The  creed,"  "the  summary  of  the  faith" — -which 
Dr.   P.  says   "  the   church  has  a  right   to  demand   of 
those   who   desire   to   enjoy  her  fellowship.""  was  ob- 
viously a  very  short  one  in  Simon's  case,  and  the  same 
is  true  in  all  the  other  recorded   instances  where  per- 
sons were   received  into  fellowship.      This  Dr.  P.  ad- 
mits.  c;In  the  primitive  days  of  Christianity,"  he  says. 
••the  creed  of  tli3  church  was  brief  and  simple,  em- 
bracing a  few  of  the  leading  fundamental  doctrines  of 
the  Bible."f     Thus  he  candidly  concedes  that  the  U. 
P.  Church  has  altered  the  divine  pattern — improved 
upon  the  inspired  mode  of  admission  to  sealing  ordi- 
nances.    If  a  "  few  of  the  leading  fundamental  doc- 
trines" was  all  that  was  required  in  connexion  with  "a 
credible  Christian  profession,"  what  right  has  Dr.  P. 
or  any  other  man  or  set  of  men  to  impose  their  fifty-one 
chapters  in   doctrines   and    morals  as  the  only  right 
terms  of  communion?    He  thus  candidly  acknowledges 
that  apostolic  example  is  against  him.     When  he  thus 
makes  large  uninspired  additions  to  the  brief  and  sim- 
ple creed — ':  a  few  of  the  leading  fundamental  doc- 
trines"—  of  the  primitive  church,  as  propounded  in 
the  terms  of  communion  by  men  "  who  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  we  can  have  little 
difficulty  in  deciding  where  our   preference  should  be 
given,    whether    to    the    inspired    pattern    or    to    the 
teaching  of  Dr.'  P.  and  the  Testimony. 

I  Ihurch  Fellowship,  p.  47.  f  Ibid.,  p.  8. 


.appeal  to  Scripture  and  reason.       75 

3.  The  reasoning  just  employed  is  equally  applicable 
to  the  case  of  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch,  Acts  8.  The 
creed  proposed  by  Philip  was.  "If  thou  believest  with 
all  thine  heart ;"  and  he  answered.  :  I  believe  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God."*  -And  he  baptized 
him."  No  jifh/-on<:  chapters  there.  So  in  the  Pen- 
tecostal baptisms.  -Repent  and  be  baptized/'  re- 
pentance being  one  of  the  fruits  of  faith.  So  in  the 
case  of  the  Jailor,  and  of  Lydia,  and  many  others.  The 
creed  was.  '•  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ" — aot 
believe  a  whole  system  of  theology,  and  eighteen  de- 
clarations of  a  '•  Testimony"  on  the  top  of  it. 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  question  is  not  in 
regard  to  the  qualifications  of  those  who  are  about  to 
become  public  teachers  in  the  church.  After  years  of 
diligent  study,  searching  the  Scriptures  and  comparing 
the  views  taught  by  great  and  good  men.  such  persons 
are  properly  subjected  to  a  pretty  severe  test  of  their 
orthodoxy  as  well  as  of  their  morals.  The  Epistles  to 
Timothy  and  Titus,  as  well  as  other  parts  of  Scripture, 
warrant  such  a  use  of  au  extended  "form  of  sound 
words."  But  this  is  a  very  different  use  of  a  creed 
from  that  which  requires  the  intending  communicant 
to  swallow  a  "  formula  of  faith,"  consisting  of  more 
than  fifty  solid  chapters.  Vet  Dr.  P.  says,  "this  unit 
be  required  of  those  who  are  received  into  the  fellow- 
ship of  the  church.'' 

*Dr.  P.  well  remarks,  "The  Eunuch  signified  hi.*  beliefiioi  Bimply  of  the 
lively  oracles  as  a  revelation  from  God,  but  of  tin-  fundamental  distinguish 
big  doctrine  embraced  in  the  creed  of  the  church,"  which  creed  lie  admits 
to  have  been  "  brief  and  simple,"  "  a  few  leading  fundamental  doctrines." 

That  is  our  theory. 


70  APPEAL   TO    SCRIPTURE   AND    REASON. 

It  is  no  valid  objection  to  the  reasoning  employed  in 
the  cases  of  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  that  a  Unitarian 
and  a  Universalist  might  make  the  profession,  "  I  be- 
lieve that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God."  These 
errorists  regard  Christ  as  a  mere  creature — and  to 
"  believe  with  all  the  heart"  in  Christ,  is  equivalent  to 
receiving  him  in  his  divine  character  as  our  loving- 
Saviour,  •'  the  Lord  our  righteousness/'  as  Philip  had 
expounded  from  Isaiah  53.  This  was  Philip's  demand 
— and  this  the  Eunuch's  faith.  Paul  elsewhere  tells 
us,  that  "  no  man  can  call  Jesus  Lord  but  by  the  Holy 
Ghost."  It  was  thus  the  Eunuch  professed  to  "  be- 
lieve with  all  his  heart,"  and  this  was  all  that  was 
required.  Doubtless  men  may  deceive,  as  Simon 
Magus  did,  but  so  they  may  falsely  profess  to  believe 
the  fifty-one  II.  P.  theological  chapters,  and  besides 
be  hypocrites  in  morals.  Dr.  P.  well  observes  that  it 
is  "  not  the  prerogative  of  the  church  to  try  the  heart." 

The  author  of  "  Church  Fellowship,"  while  ad- 
mitting that  the  apostolic  "creed  was  brief  and  simple, 
embracing  only  a  few  of  the  leading  fundamental  doc- 
trines," attempts  to  evade  the  conclusion  which  seems 
necessarily  to  follow,  by  asserting  that  wc  cannot  "  de- 
termine precisely  what  doctrines  revealed  in  the  Bible 
are  essential  to  salvation,"  in  other  words,  which  are 
"  fundamental"  to  Christianity.*  But  why  not .?  Can 
you  not  determine  the  doctrines  which  the  Apostles 
comprehended  in  their  creed,  and  which  you  describe  as 
"  leading  and  fundamental?"  This  you  can  surely  do. 
if  you  can  understand  the  Scriptures,  and  thus  you  have 

*See  p.  41>. 


APPEAL    TO    SCRIPTURE   AND    REASON.  77 

all  that  the  inspired  pattern  required  in  order  to  fel- 
lowship, in  connexion  with  "  a  credible  profession/' 
The  position  that  Dr.  P.  assumes,  viz.,  that  il  as  errors 
were  multiplied,  it  became  necessary  that  the  (apostolic) 
creed  should  be  enlarged"  —  of  course  he  means  the 
creed  used  in  r&ceivins;  intended  communicants — in- 
volvcs  the  corrupt  and  despotic,  perhaps  we  might  say 
impious,  principle  of  :{thc  mother  of  harlots  and  abom- 
inations of  the  earth,"  viz.,  the  right  to  make  laws  at 
her  pleasure  to  govern  the  church.  Concede  this  prin- 
ciple, and  you  throw  open  the  door  to  all  the  trumpery 
of  Popery. 

The  "Teat  doctrines,  therefore,  which  are  "  fuuda- 
mental"  to  Christianity,  as  well  as  "  the  credible  pro- 
fession" of  it,  are  easily  definable  to  candor  and  com- 
mon sense,  where  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  read  and 
studied  in  the  right  spirit.  Extreme  cases  may  occur 
in  which  it  will  be  difficult  to  mark  a  distinct  line 
between  some  of  the  most  exemplary  men  of  the  world, 
and  some  of  the  most  doubtful  professors,  who  may 
nevertheless  be  Christians ;  but  these  are  the  excep- 
tions. The  general  scope  of  apostolic  instruction  takes 
for  granted,  that  the  essential  conditions  of  true  faith 
and  piety  can  be  distinguished  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
If  we  cannot  know  by  this  means  who  are  credible  pro- 
fessors, what  mean  all  those  exhortations  to  self-exam- 
ination whether  we  be  in  the  faith,  to  prove  our  own 
selves,  as  well  as  to  love  and  honor  each  other  as 
brethren,  to  rejoice  with  them  that  rejoice,  eve,  &c. 
Yet  we  cannot  tell  who  these  persons  are ! 


78  APPEAL    TO    SCRIPTURE    AND    REASON. 

From  these  selected  examples  of  the  terms  of  fellow- 
ship in  the  apostolic  church.  Ave  learn  what  the  Divine 
Teacher  demands  of  those  who  desire  to  enter  his  great 
school  of  Christian  faith  and  murals  —  not  that  they 
are  to  be  ripe  scholars  at  their  entrance,  but  that  in 
the  character  of  "little  children"  they  should  come  to 
the  fountains  of  true  knowledge,  in  order  that  they 
may  ultimately  reach  the  loftiest  summit  of  all  spiritual 
attainments. 

"  in  the  time  of  the  apostles.''  says  Dr.  Killen.  of 
Belfast.  Ireland,  "those  who  embraced  the  gospel  were 
immediately  baptized ;  *  *  *  but  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  *  *  *  candidates 
were  not  admitted  to  the  ordinance  until  they  had 
passed  through  a  certain  probation."  And  in  the 
ease  of  backsliders  who  professed  penitence,  he  quotes 
Tertullian  as  saying  that  in  the  third  century,  "  they 
were  required  to  lie  in  sackcloth  and  ashes,  to  hide 
the  body  in  filthy  garments.  *  *  to  fast,  to  groan, 
to  weep  and  to  moan  day  and  night,  to  throw  them- 
selves on  the  ground  before  the  presbyters,  and  to  fall 
on  their  knees  before. (those)  beloved  of  God."*  Let 
these  and  similar  examples  admonish  us  how  easily  and 
rapidly,  if  we  once  open  the  door  to  human  improve- 
ments on  divine  ordinances,  superstition  will  rear  her 
hydra  head  and  spread  her  deadly  venom,  until,  in  a 
short  time,  the  inventions  of  men  will  smother  and 
supersede  the  institutions  of  God.  as  in  Popery. 

It  is  universally  conceded  that  the  true  church  is 
One.  assaith   Paul.  "The  body  is  one.  and   hath  many 

•■■  \nrir],t  ehiuvli.  pp.  192,    193 


DOCTRINE    OF   WESTMI&STEB    ASSEMBLY.        T9 

members,  and  all  the  members  being  many,  are  ONE 
body/'*  ••  The  efficiency  of  the  members  consists  in 
their  mutual  co-operation  as  parts  of  a  common  whole 
— this  union  being  the  foundation  of  all  the  Araluc. 
beauty  and  excellence  of  the  members  in  their  res- 
pective places] — so  that  there  should  be  no  schism  in  the 
body"  v.  25.  "[So  also  is  Christ."  Paul  is  rea- 
soning and  remonstrating  with  the  Corinthians  on 
account  of  their  schismatic  spirit.  u  I  am  of  Paul,  I 
of  Apollos,  I  of  Cephas,  I  of  Christ."  "  Is  Christ 
divided?  Was  Paul  crucified  for  you?"  he  indig- 
nantly exclaims.  But  let  it  be  observed.  (i  Scandalous 
as  their  schisms  had  been,  they  had  not  proceeded  to 
separation,  nor  did  they  dream  of  breaking  communion. 
The  apostle  very  sternly  rebuked  their  divisions  as  in- 
consistent with  the  unity  of  the  church.  But  he  docs 
not  even  hint  that  they  had  proceeded  so  far  as  to 
burst  the.  bonds  of  church  fellowship,  thus  virtually 
disowning  each  other  as  members  of  the  one  body  of 
Christ. "t 


OH  AFTER   VIL 

DOCTRINE    OF    THE  WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY. 

MfHE  argument  from  the  Sacred  Records  ought  of 
«j  itself  to  settle  the  whole  question.  But  as  we  pro- 
perly and  seripturally  defer  to  the  wisdom  of  age  and 

*  I  Cor.  12:  L2-H.  ;  \;:1  &on\  Plea,  y>,>.  10.  1% 


80       DOCTRINE    01   WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY. 

eminent  piety  and  usefulness  in  the  church — and  as  it  is 
especially  interesting  to  know  that  persons  of  this  char- 
acter, who  had  made  these  topics  a  life-long  study, 
have  taken  the  same  views  of  the  teaching  of  Scripture 
that  are  now  prevalent  among  Old  School  Presby- 
terians, we  derive  our  fourth  argument  against  -  close 
communion"  from  the  26th  Article  of  the  Westminster 
Confession. 

Argument  IV. 

The  AYostininster  divines  did  not  teach  the  modern 
doctrine  of  close  communion.  .We  have  already  alluded 
to  the  26th  Article  of  the  Westminster  Confession  in 
connexion  with  some  remarks  on  one  of  the  Acts  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland."  But  a 
few  further  explanations  may  he  useful.  The  26th 
Article.  Sec.  II.,  is  as  follows: 

■;, Saint?  by  profession  are  hound  tu  maintain  a  holy  fel- 
lowship and  communion  in  the  worship  of  God,  and  in  per- 
forming svich  other  spiritual  services  as  tend  to  their  mutual 
edification.  *  ::'  *  Which  communion,  as  God  oflereth 
opportunity,  is  to  he  extended  unto  all  those  who  in  every 
place  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

It  is  a  carious  fact  that  this  Article  is  ccrballt/  the 
tunic,  not  only  in  the  0.  S.  Presbyterian  Church  and 
the  U.  P.  Church  in  this  Country  —  which  differ  so 
widely  in  regard  to  its  meaning  —  but  it  is  also  the 
same  in  all  the  Presbyterian  Confessions  in  Scotland 
and  Ireland,  and  their  practice  agrees  with  ours. 
Thus  the  Rev.  Ft.  D.  Harper,  of  Xenia.  ()..  as  before 

*  Chapter  II..  ji.  2-5  of  this  Tolmit*, 


BOOTRINK   OF    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY.        <Sl 

quoted,  tells  us,  -'None  of  these  churches  are  identified 
with  us  (U.  P's.)  in  principle  or  practice  on  the  sub- 
ject of  communion — there  is  but  one  point  of  identity. 
and  that  is  slavery."  Hence,  it  follows,  that  all  Scot- 
land and  Ireland  reject  as  false  the  U.  P.  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Article.  This  is  rather  a  suggestive  fact 
to  begin  with. 

Again:  the  "Overture"  reported  by  Mason,  Annan 
and  Smith,  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Churchy  says, 
••'  It  is  a  fact  that  Rutherford,  Henderson,  Bailey,  &c. 
held  communion  with  the  brethren  in  England,  while 
they  attended  the  Westminster  Assembly/'*  These 
were  the  Scottish  commissioners  to  that  Assembly. 

,:  There  was  one  great  and  even  sublime  idea  brought 
somewhat  indefinitely  before  the  Westminster  Assembly 
— the  idea  of  a  Protestant  union  throughout  Christen- 
dom, *  *  *  in  order  to  purify,  strengthen  and 
unite  all  Christian  churches.  *  *  *  This  truly 
magnificent  and  Christian  idea  seems  to  have  originated 
in  the  mind  of  that  distinguished  man,  Alexander 
Henderson. v  For  this  purpose  letters  were  "  prepared 
by  the  Assembly,  by  direction  of  Parliament,  and  sent 
to  the  Protestant  Churches  of  France,  Holland,  Switz- 
erland and  other  countries."'}"  The  time  for  this  grand 
idea  to  be  fully  developed  had  not  yet  come.  But  let 
us  hear  Rev.  Dr.  David  Kerr's  comment  on  this  mag- 
nificent idea  of  a  union  of  all  Protestant  Christendom. 
Speaking  of  this  or  a  similar  movement  in  the  Assembly 
of  Divines,  he  says  : 

*  See  p.  119,  Rev.  II.  Annan/a  Overture. 
t  Hetherington's  Hist.  West.  Asb.,  p.  290. 


82       DOCTRINE    OF   *¥EBTMINSTEB    A8SEMM/Y. 

•'Establishing,  or  intending  to  establish  a  cliurch  with 
branches  of  the  same  order  in  other  countries,  their  com- 
muxion  WAS  properly  thrown  open  to  them ;  and  not 
improperly  at  such  a  time  "::"  *  *  to  individuals  of  cred 
ible  profession  in  other  than  what  were  known  as  Reformed 
ChUfchcs,  who  might  be  driven  by  persecution,  or  cast  by 
any  cause  temporarily  among  them."-- 

This  is  a  very  remarkable  statement,  considering  the 
source  whence  it  proceeds. 

(1)  What  did  the  Westminster  Assembly  mean 
by  the  phrase,  "which  communion  as  (rod  offereth 
opportunity,  is  to  be  extended  to  all  in  every  place 
who  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  V9  Dr. 
Kerr  tells  us,  Ci  their  communion  was  thrown  open  to 
the  Reformed  Churches  in  other  countries  ;"  and  he 
approves  of  it — says  it  was  done  "properly."  In  other 
words,  the  Assembly  'A  intended  to  establish  branches 
of  the  Presbyterian  order  in  France,  Switzerland, 
Holland,  &c.';  And  on  this  ground  they  threw  open 
( a  very  expressive  phrase)  their  communion  to  those 
persons  from  other  countries  where  they  intended  to 
plant  those  branches.  This  was  certainly  a  very  sin- 
gular sort  of  "  close  communion."  Just  as  if  Dr.  Ken- 
should  intend  to  convert  an  Old  School  church  into  a 
U.  P.  church,  and  for  this  reweon  should  receive  them 
to  communion. 

(2)  More  than  this :  Dr.  Kerr  says  the  Assembly 
•;  threw  open  their  communion  to  others"  who  were 
not  known  as  Reformed  Churches  at  all.  "individuals 
of  credible  profession/'  refugees  from  other  lands, 
driven  by  persecution  to  Britain,  li  or  cast  hi/  any 
■'-  r  p.  Quarterly  Review,  lseo,  p,  137. 


DOCTRINE    OF    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY.       83 

cause  temporarily  among  them/'  And  this,  he  says, 
••  even  the  straitest  sect  would  admit  was  done  not  im- 
properly at  such  a  time."  This  is  Westminster  "close 
communion"  No.  2,  and  Dr.  Kerr  approves  of  it. 

(o)  When  Dr.  K.  proceeds  to  say,  "that  to  suppose 
the  Westminster  divines  intended  to  throw  open  the 
communion  of  their  church  to  all  who  in  their  own 
judgment  'called  on  the 'name  of  the  Lord  Jesus/ 
would  be  to  give  a  construction  to  their  history  in 
which  they  would  be  stultified,"*  we  entirely  agree 
with  him.  They  meant  no  such  foolish  thing.  Be- 
cause that  would  admit  scores  of  errorists,  such  as 
Tniversalists,  Unitarians,  &c.,  who  think  they  call  on 
that  name  in  some  sense.  If  Dr.  K.  means  to  say  that 
Old  School  Presbyterians  thus  stultify  themselves,  he 
i-  greatly  mistaken. 

(4)  When  Dr.  K.  informs  us.  that  the  Westminster 
Assembly  "  not  improperly  threw  open  the  occasional 
communion  of  their  churches  to  individuals  from 
abroad"  who  had  never  "belonged  to  Reformed 
Churches,"  he  expressly  refers  to  those  called  Luth- 
eran Churches,  in  distinction  from  the  Informed  or 
< 'alvinistic  Churches  in  Europe. 

Where  persons,  he  tells  us.  were  not  such  as  had 
come  to  reside  permanently  in  England,  "but  were 
cast  temporarily  there,"  yet  making  "a  credible  pro- 
fession/' the  Westminster  Assembly,  Dr.  K.  assures 
us.  il  threw  open  their  communion  to  them."  Thus 
the   26th  Article  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  in 

':  r.  /'.  Quarterly,  v.  138. 


#4      B0CT1UXK    OK    WFSTMIXSTKK    ASi«8MBI,Y. 

•extending  communion  to  nil  who   in  every  place  call 
upon  the  name  of  the   Lord  .losus."  was  designed,  it 
Dr.  Kerr  gives  the  correct  interpretation,  to  admit  to 
occasional   communion  both  Oalvknlts  and  Lutherans 
••cast  temporarily   for  any   cause"   in    England.     We 
have  no  doubt  that  Dr.  K.  is  right  —  but   then  what 
becomes  oP  the  ;:  Testimony,"  which  says  K  the  church 
should    not    extend    communion   to   those   who  refuse 
*       *       subjection  to  her  government  and  discipline, 
or  who  refuse  (to  forsake  a  commitmon  which  is  incon- 
sistent with  the   profession    that  she    makes."      Will 
Dr.  Kerr  please  inform  us  where  he  learned   that  all 
these  occasional  communicants.    Lutherans   as  well  as 
Calvinists.  made  any  such  renunciation  of  their  former 
church  connexions  as  they  existed   on   the  Continent : 
He  admits  that  no  such  requirements  were  imposed 
upon   them   in    England,  before   they  were  allowed  to 
approach  the    Lord's  table.     There  is   no  reconciling 
the  "  Testimony"  with  the  Westminster  Confession   in 
this    particular.     If    a    Lutheran    from    Germany   or 
France  was   fit  for   communion    on    the  ground  of  ua 
credible    profession,"    why   is    not    ;i    T^resbyterian    or 
Covenanter    equally   fit,   coming    from    a    neighboring 
State  or  county  and  present  at  a  U.  P.  communion  ? 
When  we  apply  this  26th  Article  as  interpreted  by 
Dr.  K.  to  the  logic  of  the  author  of  Ci  Church  Fellow- 
ship,"   the    confusion    and    trouble    greatly   multiply. 
Speaking    of  those    'l«who    adhere    to    a   system   to  a 
greater  or  less  extent  inconsistent   with    the   cause   of 
truth/'  i.  e.  as  i\\ii  V.  P.   understands  it.  Dr.   P.  says, 


••  The  church  that  would  be  faithful  to  her  Lord  must 
regard  such  persons  as  those  who  in  some  respects  do 
net  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  in  a  scriptu- 
ral manner  —  who  /,/  some  respects-  walk  disorderly." 
■•And  therefore''  he  continues,  "so  long  as  they  choose 
to  remain  in  connexion  with  a  system  of  error,  the 
church  may  not  he  a  partaker  o/'  their  sin  by  receiving 
them  into  her  fellowship*"*  Now,  apply  this  doctrine 
to  the  case  of  the  .Lutherans,  of  whom  Dr.  K.  speaks, 
mho  had  •*  a  credible  profession."  Did  the  Lutheran 
Churches  in  Europe  hold  correct  views  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacramental 
elements  ?  Were  they  not  ••  in  connexion-  with  a 
system  of  error  in  some  respects"  on  censubstantiation  ? 
Were  they  sound  Calvinists  such  as  were  the  West- 
minster divines  ?  Were  they  strictly  Presbyterian  in 
their  views  of  church  government?  It  is  well  known 
that  in  sonic  countries  their  church  is  Episcopal — in 
others  they  have  a  Consistory^  with  subordination  of 
inferior  clergy  to  their  superiors,  altogether  different 
froia  (he  purity  of  Presbyterianisni. 

Such  were  the  persons  to  whom  Dr.  Kerr  tells  us 
the  Westminster  Assembly  ::tjiuk\v  open  the  com- 
munion of  their  churches."  Such  was  the  meaning  of 
the  26th  Article  of  their  Confession.  ':  extending  com- 
munion to  all  who  in  every  place  call  upon  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus."  J>ufc  if  we  understand  Dr.  P. 
correctly,  the  Westminster  Assembly  in  so  doing  were 
•;  unfaithfnl  to  their  Lord" — ;'were  partakers  of  the 
sin"  of  ih -V  Lutherans.  &c.     They  certainly  <;  in  some 

i  h.  Fellowship,  ]..  6§. 


86      DOCTRINE    OF    WESTMIN6TEB    ASSEMBLY* 

respects  walked  disorderly,"  and  instead  of  "throwing 
open  their  communion"  to  such  terrorists,  the  Assembly, 
on  TJ.  P.  principles,  should  have  closed  it  fast,  just  as 
Dr.  P.  shuns  partaking  of  the  sin  of  Old  School  Pres- 
byterians. 

The  fact  which  is  thus  asserted,  viz..  that  the  West- 
minster Assembly  "threw  open  the  communion  of  their 
churches  to  the  Reformed  (Calvinists)  and  to  the  Luth- 
erans." their  great  opponents,  sheds  light  also  upon 
another  subject.  One  chief  reason  dwelt  upon  by  Drs. 
Kerr  and  Pressly.  .-is  rendering  absolutely  necessary 
"  close  communion,"  is  that  /the  church  is  now  divided 
into  sects."  •'•  a  state  of  things  unnatural  and  im- 
proper. "'  And  as  the  very  existence  of  these  different 
organizations  presupposes  a  diversity  in  theological 
doctrines,  they  cannot  walk  together  even  so  far  as  to 
sit  at  the  same  communion  table,  because  they  are  not 
agreed.  "All  are  bound  to  contend  earnestly, "  says 
Dr.  P..  "one  endeavoring  to  propagate  doctrines  which 
another  rejects,  &c;,;*  ErgOj  say  these  brethren,  we 
dare  not  be  unfaithful  to  the  Lord — we  dare  not  •'•'  par- 
take of  the  sin"  of  such  disorderly  Christians  as  the 
Reformed  Presbyterians  and  Old  School  Presbyterians, 
by  admitting  them  occasionally  to  our  fellowship. 

Now  how  different  all  these  theories  from  the  theory 
and  practice  of  the.  Westminster  Assembly.  The 
Lutherans  held  that  "the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  arc 
'materially  present  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Sapper."  Do  Old  School  Presbyterians  and  Cove- 
nanters  teach    auy   such   monstrous    and  impious   ab- 

*Oh.  Fellowship,  p.  29. 


DOCTRINE    «'»V    WESTMINSTER     ASSEMBLY.      87 

surdity  as  this  ■?  The  Lutherans  of  1643  held  to  '-the 
use  of  images  in.  churches,  clerical  vestments,  wafers  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  exorcism  in  baptism — as  useful 
rites  and  institutions."  They  were  a  distinct  denom- 
ination, and  far  from  sound  Calvinism  on  the  subject 
of  decrees.f  ^e^  ^r-  K.  tolls  us  the  Westminster 
Assembly  threw  open  the  communion  of  their 
churches  to  such  errorists  as  these.  And  then  as  to 
the  use  of  ;:  other  songs''  than  the  '•'•  Psalms  of  David." 
and  of  instrumental  music,  every  one  knows  that  they 
were  <[iiite  as  corrwpb  as  Old  School  Presbyterians — 
perhaps  more  so.  Yet  to  these  same  errorists.  Dr.  K. 
tells  us.  the  Westminster  divines  threw  open  the 
communion  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Hut  to  allow  an 
orthodox  Oalvinist.  under  the  name  of  Oovenanter  or 
^)ld  School  Presbyterian,  to  partake  of  such  fellowship 
in  the  U.  P.  Church,  would  be  unfaithfulness  to  cove- 
nant vows,  partaking  of  the  sin  of  such  a  person,  &q. 
Let  it  be  observed,  moreover,  that  this  •'  extension 
of  communion"  to  Lutherans,  who  in  so  •'•man//  )■>•- 
spec  fa  wore  walking  disorderly"  (as  Dr.  P.  hath  it),  was 
not  merely  through  sympathy  for  their  sufferings  from 
persecution.  It  was  extended  to  those  who.  as  Dr.  K. 
says,  ;:  from  avay  ceatse  resided  temporarily"  in  Eng- 
land. All  this  he  decidedly  approves.  And  if  Dr.  K. 
is  correct,  as  we  have  no  doubt  he  is,  we  can  have  little 
difficulty  in  interpreting  the  2Gth  Article  of  the  West- 
minster Confession:  ::  which  communion,  as  Cod  offer- 
eth  opportunity,  is  to  be  extended  unto  all  who  in 
every  place  call  upon  the   name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

;  See  M,,  !,,iiM,  Life  of  Luther,  &c. 


88        DOUTRINK    OF    VTBtiTMINgTlSIt    ASSEMBLY. 

We  have  still  another  striking  proof  that  ours  is 
the  true  interpretation  of  this  26th  Article.  In  1711 . 
only  about  sixty  years  after  the  dissolution  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland  passed  an  Act.  which,  as  before  quoted,  ex- 
pressly extends  communion  in  sealing  ordinances  "  to 
persons  educated  in  the  Protestant  Churches  (both  Re- 
formed and  Lutheran),  strangers,  free  of  scandal,  and 
professing  their  fa itli  in  Christ  and  obedience  to  him. 
&c."*  There  is  nothing  said  about  requiring  such 
d  rangers  to  forsake  former  communions,  as  the  "Testi- 
mony" hath  it.  Indeed,  this  Act  of  1711  is  merely  an 
expression  in  plainer  terms  of  the  Westminster  article  of 
1643.  Dr.  Harper,  a  TL  P.  clergyman  of  Xenia,  0.. 
assures  us  that  there  is  no  "close communion"  practiced 
in  the  Churches  of  Scotland  and  Ireland  at  the  preset^ 
day;  and  we  are  told  by  the  historian  of  the  former 
church,  that  -:  the  full  arrangement  of  the  Confession. 
Form  of  Government  and  Discipline  as  they  exist  at 
the  present  day,  was  completed  in  1647,"  when  the 
Scottish  Assembly  ratified  those  symbols  as  they  came 
from  the  liands  of  the  Westminster  Assembly — the 
':  Government  and  Discipline,"  says  Hetherington. 
as  they  now  exist,  of  course  including  the  26th  Article 
on  communion."  As  to  any  departure  from  the  strict 
interpretation  of  the  26th  Article,  the  historian  is 
silent.  Writing  in  1860,  he  refers  to  the  Act  of  1711  ; 
and  following  the  record  back  to  1647,  we  there  find 
the  origin  of  what  the  historian  calls  "  the  Second  Re- 
formation  of  the   Scottish   Church."     But  there  is  no 

*  Chapter  II.,  p.  23. 


DOCTRINE    OF    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY.       S9 

hint  of  a  great  backsliding  from  the  attainments  of 
1643,  or  criminal  loosening  of  the  bands  of  discipline 
in  the  matter  of  ;;  communion"  as  ordained  by  the 
Westminster  forefathers."  So  also  that  eminently 
pious  and  laborious  minister  of  the  Free  Church 
of  Scotland,  llev.  Robert  M'Chcyne,  than  whom  few 
have  left  a  more  grateful  savor  of  a  holy  life  and  dis- 
tinguished usefulness,  very  cleary  indicates  the  com- 
mon sentiment  on  the  subject  of  catholic  communion. 
He  says : 

"The  early  Reformers  hold  the  same  view.  Baxter, 
Owen,  and  Howe,  in  a  later  generation,  pleaded  for  it ;  and 
the  Westminster  divines  laid  down  the  same  principle,  in 
few  hut  solemn  words  :  '  Saints  by  profession  are  bound  to 
maintain  a  holy  fellowship  and  communion  in  the  worship 
of  God — which  communion,  as  God  offereth  opportunity,  is 
to  be  extended  to  all  those  who  in  every  place  call  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.'  These  words,  embodied  in  our 
Standards,  show  clearly  that  the  views  maintained  above 
are  the  very  principles  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Such 
were  the  principles  of  the  Reformers," 

Again,  M'Cheyue  remarks  : 

"  I  believe  it  to  be  the  mind  of  Christ]  that  all  who  are 
virtually  united  to  him,  should  love  one  another,  exhort  one 
another  daily,  *  -  *  pray  with  and  for  one  another, 
and  sit  down  together  at  the  Lord's  table.  Each  of  these 
positions  may  be  proved  by  the  Word  of  God.  *  *  ~/r 
Upon  this  I  h»ve~always  acted,  both  in  sitting  down  to  the 
Lord's  table,  and  in  admitting  others  to  that  blessed  privi- 
lege." 

In  illustration,  he  adds  : 

'<  I  was  once  permitted  to  unite  in  celebrating  the  Lord's 

^Hetheriiigtott'e  Hi«(.  Ch.  of  Soot.,  chap.  6. 


90       DOCTRINE    01   WESTMINSTEE    ASSEMBLY. 

Supper  id  an  upper  room  in  Jerusalem.  There  were  four- 
te  11  present,  most  of  whom,  I  had  good  reason  to  believe, 
knew  and  loved  Jesus.  Several  were  godly  Episcopalian., 
two  were  converted  Jews,  and  one  a  Chri.-tian  from  Naz- 
areth, converted  under  the  American  missionaries.  The 
bread  and  vine  were  dispensed  in  the  Episcopal  manner. 
and  most  were  kneeling  as  they  received  them.  "::'  *  * 
We  felt  it  to  be.  not  the  confusion  of  Babel,  but  the  sweet 
fellowship  with  Christ  and  the  brethren.**" 

He  then  quotes  the  remark  of  Roland  Hiil.  who 
when  certain  Baptists  told  him.  "  You  cannot  *it  down 
at  our  table."'  replied,  "  I  thought  it  was  the  L<>,-<T ' .< 
tabic."' 

Wo  have  Copied  these  ■  .  -  ..  •  a  the  lamented 
31'Cheync.  not  merely  because  of  the  argument  they 
contain,  but  as  apt  illustrations  of  the  sort  of  views 
which  are  cherished  by  the  most  uii'u-d  men  of  the 
Tree  Church.  "Did  any  bod)'  ever  bring  charges 
against  M'Cheyne  for  holding  and  publishing  the.-; 
dangerous  sentiments  t  Such  a  proposition  would 
doubtless  have  been  treated  with  derision.  '1  'he  heart 
of  the  Scottish  Church  was  with  him.  and  he  well 
knew  that  he  stood  on  safe  ground. 

On  these  and  similar  grounds,  we  feel  safe  in  affirm- 
ing that  the  judgment  of  the  Westminster  Assembly 
is  on  the  side  of  the  Churches  of  Scotland  and  Ireland, 
the  Old  School  Presbyterians  of  ibis  country,  and  in  a 
word,  the  great  mass  of  all  true  Protestant  Christians 
in  the  world. 

But  to  prove  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt  that  the 
Westminster   Assembly  did   not   intend   to   bach    the 

i  ■    .:     .   I        i 


DOCTRINE    OF    WESTMINSTER    ASSEMBLY.      91 

doctrine  of'"  close  communion/*,  we  add  this  fact,  that 
a  letter  of  date  Nov.  30,  1643,  was  addressed  to  the 
Dutch,  French  and  Swiss  Churches,  and  signed  by  all  the 
members,  including  the  Scotch  commissioners.  This 
letter  styles  these  churches  "  dearly  beloved  in  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  our  much  honored  brethren,"  and 
states  that  the  object  of  the  Assembly  was  to  originate 
and  commend  such  a  platform  of  church  government 
l-  as  may  be  most  agreeable  to  God-s  Word,  nearest  in 
conformity  to  the  best  Reformed  Churches,  and  to  es- 
tablish unity  among  ourselves."  Now  these  churches 
thus  affectionately  addressed  were  all  u  catholic"  on 
the  matter  of  communion."  One  of  them  indeed  de- 
clared that  "  she  should  be  guilty  of  NEFARIOUS 
schism,  should  she  withdraw  from  communion  with 
other  churches  of  the  Reformation." 

It  is  obvious,  therefore,  to  adopt  the  language  of 
Dr.  John  M.  Mason,  that  "like  the  Dutch,  French  and. 
Swiss  Churches,  the  Westminster  Assembly  and  the 
Evangelical  interest  generally  throughout  Europe, 
were  desirous,  that  the  right  to  communion  should  rest 
upon  the  broad  foundation  of  the  common  faith,  with- 
out regard  to  minor  differences.  This,"  adds  Dr.  M.,  uis 
one  of  the  most  incontestible  facts  in  all  ecclesiastical 
history."  From  all  which  our  fourth  argument  against 
:;  close  communion"  is  placed  upon  a  firm  footing,  viz., 
"  the  Westminster  divines  taught  no  such  contracted 
doctrine,  but  the  direct  opposite."  And  the  example 
of  the  tiutKerqm  proves  beyond  controversy,  that  they 

*Thiu  i.  proved  by  published  documents,    See  Mason's  Plea, 
9 


92      INCONSISTENCIES    OF   CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

did  not  mean  to  exclude  all  who  could  not  subscribe  to 
their  Confession  —  to  say  nothing  of  the  eighteen  de- 
clarations of  the  TT.  P.  Testimony. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

LXC<>\S]STEX('IES  OF  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

iT.NlIE  brethren  who  wrote  and  circulate  the  volume 
^k  called  c;  Church  Fellowship,"  admit  that  "  in  the 
present  state  of  imperfection,  there  will  always  exist 
some  diversity,  of  opinion  among  the, members  of  the 
church."  They  seem  to  open  the  door  of  their  fellow- 
ship to  kv  babes"  who  cannot  "  intelligently  assent  to 
some  of  the  more  sublime  doctrines  of  their  creed/' 
They  also  speak  respectfully  of  the  "  different  sister 
churches."  separate  from  whom  they  feel  bound  to 
maintain  a  "  distinct  organization  as  faithful  witnesses 
for  the  h'uth,"  i.  e.  for  those  truths,  as  they  regard 
them,  in  defense  of  which  they  stand  aloof  from  others. 
They  also  profess  toward  us  0.  S.  Presbyterians  "feel- 
ings of  the  kindest  fraternal  regard  and  wishes  of 
abundant  success,  &C.''  On  such  premises  as  these, 
we  found 

AliCIMLNT     V. 

The  doctrine  of  close  communion  practically  txumi- 
mun (cafes  all  other  denominations  but  the  U.  P.  body, 
though  acknowledged  to  be  the  friends  and  follower? 
of  Christ, 


INCONSISTENCIES    OF    CLOSE    COMMUNION.       93 

It  is  a  fact  perhaps  not  generally  known,  that  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  whose  Confession  is  said  to 
teach  this  narrow  theory,  remained  steadily  in  fellow- 
ship with  the  English  Established  Church,  although 
they  justly  complained  of  grievous  abuses  and  cor- 
ruptions in  her  discipline,  worship  and  government. 
Nor  did  they  forsake  that  communion  until  they  were 
driven  out  by  the  Act  of  Conformity.  Then  they  ar- 
rived at  ^he  extreme  limit  of  forbearance.  Submission 
was  no  longer  a  duty.*  Baxter  tells  us  in  his  Life  that 
they  were  at  the  time  of  assembling  at  Westminster. 
'•  all  conformists,  save  about  eight  or  nine  and  the 
Scottish  commissioners."- 

In  this  the  divines  of  Westminster  doubtless  acted 
on  the  principle  that  to  refuse  communion  with  a  church 
is  virtually  to  pronounce  her  excommimicatetl,  and  her 
members  no  followers  of  Jesus.  It  declares  her  so  very 
corrupt  that  her  communion  is  unlawful — a  sin  against 
God'.  But  this  is  a  virtual  denial  of  the  visible  Christ- 
ianity of  her  members.  It  may  be  disavowed  in  words, 
but  such  is  its  plain  meaning.  These  brethren,  we 
admit,  shrink  from"  the  full,  practical  results  of  their 
own  doctrine ;  but  it  is  obvious  that  they  thus  class 
•'sister  churches"  professing  certain  minor  difference-: 
from  themselves,  with  such  as  maintain  i:  heinous  vio- 
lations of  the  law  of  God  and  such  errors  in  principle 
as  unhinge  the  Christian  profession,  which  are  the 
only  scandals  for  which  sentence  of  excommunication 
should  be  passed. f 

*  Mason's  Plea. 

f  Discipline  of  the  A.  R.  Church.    Of  Excommunication. 


V»4      INCONSISTENCIES   OF    CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

Iii  harmony  with  these  reasonings,  the  lie  v.  J.  A. 
Sloan,  a  minister  of  standing  in  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church,  writes  as  follows  :* 

"  This  exclusive  communion  principle,  which  has  heen 
adopted  by  many  as  a  rule  of  God's  house,  rests  on  no  higher 
authority  than  the  <  traditions  of  men."  You  wish,"  he  tells 
his  brethren,  "to  hold  to  an  old  usage  which  has  no  higher 
sanction  than  the  customs  of  the  fathers  of  the  church.  I 
wish  to  leave  this,  come  back  to  the  Bible  and  Confession 
of  Faith.  You  desire  to  keep  brethren  in  a  state  of  eontinued 
separation";  I  clc=irc  to  unite  them  closer  together  by  the 
holiest  tie.'7 

Again,  says  Mr.  Sloan  : 

"We  have  examined  the  doctrines  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  the  Catechisms,  and  the  Directory  for  Public  Worship, 
and  we  have  not  found  a  word  there  teaching  the  position  that 
only  A.  E.  Presbyterians  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
table,  unless  we  are  prepared  to  take  the  unscriptural  ground 
that  all  those  outside  of  her  rule  are  '  ignorant  and  ungodly' 
or  'profane,'  as  these  are  the  ?only  characters  whom  our 
standards  exclude.  Now,  we  will  not  be  so  uncharitable  to 
any  of  our  close  communion  brethren  as  to  charge  them 
with  calling  members  of  other  Christian  churches  by  the 
epithets,  '  ungodly,'  '  ignorant,'  'scandalous,'  or  'profane' 
Still,  these  are  the  only  persons  excluded  by  the  standard-: 
from  our  church.  Xo  one  of  our  close  communion  brethren 
would  say  that  an  O.  S.  Presbyterian  was  an  '  ignorant  and 
ungodly'  person,  or  'profane.'  2so,  they  will  not  flare  to 
take  this  position  in  so  many  "words  ;  still,  it  is  an  old  adage, 
that  '  actions  speak  louder  than  words.'  ' 

Again: 

"  "We  have  heard  the  ablest  men  in  our  Synod  '  fence  the 

*  Due  West  Telescope. 


INCONSISTENCIES    01"    CLOSE    COMMUNION.      V'd 

tables,'  and  have  never  yet  heard  one  of  them  attempt  to 
defend  the  practice  of  exclusive  communion  on  scriptural 
grounds;  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  have  either  evaded 
the  point  altogether,  or  defended  it  on  the  ground  of  ex- 
pediency or  policy." 

"  Faithful  aie  the  words  of  a  friend."  But  it  is  in 
a  far  deeper  and  more  solemn  tone  the  writer  of  the 
following  speaks,  having  reference  originally  to  the 
divisions  among  several  of  the  smaller  bodies  of 
Scottish  origin.     He  says  : 

•Men  should  ponder  well  the  wsponsibility  assumed  in 
maintaining  existing  divisions,  by  contending  for  minor  pe- 
culiarities and  urging  them  as  terms  of  communion,  to  the 
exclusion  of  brethren  who  are  one  with  themselves  in  all 
the  fundamentals  of  Christian  doctrine,  worship  and  order. 
The  day  is  coming  when  we  must  look  at  these  things  in 'the 
light  of  eternity,  and  sad  will  be  our  account,  if,  while  we 
are  set  for  the  defense  of  the  gospel,  we  shall  be  found  to 
have  cast,  even  though  it  be  unwittingly  through  a  mistaken 
zeal,  the  most  serious  impediments  in  the  way  of  its  pro- 
gress."- 

Let  those  who  are  striving  with  so  much  zeal  to 
perpetuate  these  unnatural  schisms  in  the  body  of 
Christ,  look  well  to  it  lest  "they  be  found  fighting 
against  God."  It  is  a  sad  illustration  of  this  schis- 
matical  spirit,  that  the  ':  union"  from  which  sprung 
the  U.  P.  Church,  resulted  in  the  formal  existence  of 
throe  sects  where  there  were  previously  only  Hco. 
Such  are  the  fruits  of  the  policy  which  virtually  says 
to  all  but  the  members  of  the  U.  P.  Church,  ':  Stand 
back,  for  we  are  holier  than  you." 

*  UniUd  Presbyterian.  July.  1857.  p.  113, 
9* 


96      INCONSISTENCIES    OF    ('LOSE    GOUMtJTftOlfs < 

Argument  VI. 

The  close  communion  theory  involves  its  advocates 
in  gross  inconsistencies,  approaching  almost  to  pro- 
ianeness. 

These  brethren  employ  in  reference  to  this  and 
similar  topics,  such  solemn  language  as  this  :  "  Our 
responsibilities  as  a  Presbyterian  Church" — "  faithful- 
ness to  our  divine  Master" — "faithfulness  to  the 
Lord" — •  faithful  as  witnesses  for  the  truth."  &c,  &c. 
.Vow.  it  is  a  sound  scriptural  principle,  that  "  it  is 
better  not  to  vow,  than  that  thou  shouldest  vow  and  not 
pay."*  But  to  make  and  publish  a  set  of  ecclesiastical 
rules  enforced  with  such  solemn  sanctions,  while  at  the 
same  time  they  are  openly  and  without  scruple  vio- 
lated, is  certainly  little  less  than  immoral,  and  profane. 

In  a  former  chapter  we  quoted  from  the  Evangelical 
Repository ,  the  organ  in  former  years  of  the  Associate 
Church,  several  examples  of  this  great  inconsistency 
in  that  branch  of  the  U.  P.  body.  These  incongruities 
were  in  [the  matters  of  slaveholding,  voting  for  adul- 
terers, drunkards,  gamblers,  and  other  profligate  and 
profane  persons,  intemperance,  &c.  This  was  of 
course  before  the  union  with  the  Associate  Reformed 
and  the  origin  of  the  U.  P.  Church.  We  now  advert 
to  a  few  illustrations  of  the  same  inconsistency  among 
the  Associate  Reformed. 

Man}-  persons  remember  Prof.  Dinwiddie,  formerly 
colleague  of  Dr.  Pressly  in  the  Theological  Seminary 
in  Allegheny  City.     Here  was  a  man  taken  from  the 

*  Ecclea.  5:5, 


INCONSISTENCIES    OF    CLOSE    COMMUNION-.       i:>7 

0.  S.  Presbyterian  Church,  placed  at  the  very  foun- 
tains of  influence,  installed  as  the  teacher  and  model  of 
young  ministers.  He  had  been  in  the  habit  of  singing 
"  Watts'  Psalms  and  Hymns,"  and  professed  no  re- 
pentance for  this  and  similar  crimes.  Of  course,  he 
had  been  also  guilty  of  violating  the  law  of  u  close 
communion,"  and  thus  had  done  what  the  Testimony 
declares  "  was  highly  displeasing  to  God."  Now,  if 
the  teachings  of  Dr.  P.  and  the  Testimony  be  true,  was 
not  this  a  solemn  trilling  with  sacred  things  ?  Where 
were  those  dread  "  responsibilities"  which  Dr.  P.  pro- 
fesses to  recognize  toward  the  divine  Master  ?  Where 
was  "  the  faithfulness  to  the  Lord"  which  he  professes 
as  a  governing  motive  ?  How  could  he  venture  thus 
to  ignore  his  own  conscientious  convictions  ? 

Another  example  :  The  late  Rev.  Mr.  Buchanan, 
of  Allegheny  City,  a  co-presbyter  with  Dr.  P.,  pub- 
lished in  the  Presbyterian  Advocate,  while  the  writer 
was  the  editor,  several  articles  in  opposition  to  "  close 
communion."  In  these  pieces,  the  argument  against  it 
from  the  Scriptures  and  from  the  2C>th  Article  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  was  pointedly  adduced.  We 
have  room,  however,  for  only  one  or  two  extract?  ex- 
hibiting the  inconsistency  of  the  practice  with  the 
professions  of  those  who  taught  the  restricted  theory. 
Mr.  B.  exposes  the  multitudinous  requirements  im- 
posed as  a  heavy  burden  upon  plain  people,  thus : 

• ':  If  we  believe  those  who  contend  For  close  communion,  we 
must  swallow  all  their  dogmas,  important  and  noni m porta nt, 
big  and  little,  before  we  dare  to  approach  the  table  upon  which 


98      INCONSISTENCIES  .  OF    CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

the  emblems  of  the  broken  body  and  shed  blood  of  Christ  are 
placed.  And  how  many  of  these  are  indebted  to  subtle  and 
metaphysical  theologians  for  their  origin,  I  will  not  under- 
take to  determine  ;  a  mass  of  indigestible  food,  all  of  which 
ihcy  require  the  communicant  (whether  he  is  possessed  of  a 
weak  or  strong  stomach )  to  gulp  down,  or  be  denied  the 
privilege  of  doing  this  in  remembrance  of  his  meek  and 
lowly  Master.  Yes,  they  build  such  a  high  wall  of  pecu- 
liarities around  tbe  communion  bread  and  wine,  that  none 
of  the  common  people  could  ever  get  to  it,  if  a  great  deal 
was  not  taken  for. granted  without  being  understood." 

'••  A  great  deal  must  be  taken  for  granted  without 
being  understood  !"  A  heavy  charge,  but  not  without 
reason. 

Again,  says  Mr.  Buchanan  : 

■•It  appears  to  me,  as  if  those  who  are  ao  very  rigidly 
exact,  '  strain  at  a  gnat  and  swallow  a  camel.'  They  exclude 
from  their  communion  many  worthy  members  of  Christ's 
household  by  their  little  distinctions  and  non-essentials, 
while  they  admit  the  gross  violators  of  his  law.  Who  has 
not  seen  this?  Who  has  not  seen  a  man  with  "  Thou  art  a 
drunkard.'  written  in  -flaming  characters  upon  his  face,  ad- 
mitted to  tbe  communion  table ;  while  another,  worthy  in 
every  respect,  except  this  one  point,  viz.,  his  faith  and  prac- 
tice in  regard  to  Psalmody,  is  excluded  ?" 

The  same  blind  admission  of  members  is  openly 
avowed  in  the  new  U.  P.  paper,  the  Union  Prrshy- 
terian,  of  Cincinnati.  Speaking  of  the  utter  ^im- 
possibility" of  enforcing  the  adoption  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith  and  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  as 
terms  of  communion  in  receiving  members,  a  corres- 
pondent remarks: 


I\<'n\SlSTi;\<IKS    OF    PLORK    POMMUfTION.       99 

•'  It  will  be  said  that  we  are  only  to  require  their  assent. 
hi  so  far  as  they  understand  them.  Let  us,  therefore,  inquire 
how  far  young  converts  understand  these  documents. 

"  Is  the  Confession  of  Faith  ever  taught  in  families'/  1 
have  yet  to  learn  of  a  single  instance.  Is  it  taught  in  Sab- 
bath schools?  Never  that  I  have  heard  of.  In  rare  in- 
stances, pastors  meet  with  candidates,  and  read  over  the 
Confession,  and  require  assent,  but  an  understanding  of  it  is 
never  "attempted,  except  in  our  Theological  Seminaries. 

•'  Turn  now  to  the  Catechisms.  How  many  of  the  nrinis- 
try  ever  read  the  Larger  Catechism?  Probably  about  half. 
How  many  of  the  membership  under  forty  years  of  age  ? 
Possibly  one  in  ten.  The  Shorter  Catechism  is  more  or  less 
studied,  or  rather  committed.  How  much  of  it  is  Under- 
stood is  quite  another  question.'" 

Indeed,  how  could  it  be  otherwise  ?  Says  the  same 
writer  in  the  Union   Presbyterian  : 

"Tfre  Confession  of  Faith  is  in  itself  a  vast  system  o€ 
theology.  It  was  formed  by  theological  giants,  at  a  time 
when  the  interest  in  theological  discussion  was  all  absorbing, 
not  only  among  the  ministry,  but  among  politicians.  The 
Catechisms,  Larger  and  Shorter,  are  almost  a  complete  sys- 
tem of  faith  and  practice.  There  is  scarcely  a  point  of 
Christian  belief  or  duty  that  does  not  find  a  clear  and  con- 
cise expression  in  these  admirable  summaries.  The  Con- 
fession and  Catechisms  embrace  the  results  of  the  study  of 
the  ablest  men  for  sixteen  hundred  years  upon  the  Word  of 
God.  Next  we  have  the  Testimony,  explaining  more  fully 
the  light  in  which  the  church  views  the  Confession,  and 
defining  her  position  upon  recent  issues."' 

From  these  and  other  similar  facts,  we  feel  safe  in 
asserting  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  U.  P.  Church 
are  practical  unbelievers  in  the  minutise  of  their  creed 


100    INCONSISTENCIES    OF    CLOSE    CO'MMUjfeOK. 

The  stream  will  not  rise  higher  than  the  fountain. 
Indeed,  the  Rev.  Mr.  M'Cune  assures  us  that  "  not 
one-half of  the  members  of  the  IT.  P.  Church  believe 
every  part  of  their  Confession  and  Testimony."* 

We  next  present  a  very  remarkable  case  in  the 
bosom  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church.  The  Rev. 
William  Davidson,  P.  P.,  of  Hamilton,  0.,  published 
several  years  ago,  in  one  or  more  of  the  U.  P.  papers. 
his  decided  opposition  to  the  theory  of  "  close  commu- 
nion." The  conditions  which  their  General  Assembly 
had  attached  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  he  openly  repu- 
diated, because  they  oppressed  his  conscience,  and  he 
would  not  do  it  violence  at  the  bidding  of  the  As- 
sembly. 

That  Dr.  Davidson  is  entirely  unprepared  to  submit 
to  the  dicta  of  his  brethren  on  these  points,  is  evident 
from  the  following  extract  from  his  article : 

ilI  believe,"  he  says,  "I  fully  believe,  that  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  our  Confession  of  Faith,  our  Catechisms,  and  the 
great  body  of  Christian  churches,  in  all  time,  conspire  to 
declare  that  '  visible  discipleship'  entitles  to  membership  in 
the  church  of  God.  I  believe  that  the  commission  which. 
as  a  pastor,  1  hold  from  Jesus  Christ,  requires  me  to  receive 
all  such,  rind  to  fellowship  them.  In  receiving  members 
into  the  church,  I  cannot  require  more,  nor  accept  less 
than  this,  without,  as  I  conceive,  violating  the  express 
language  of  the  commission  under  which  I  net.  iSee 
Matt.  28:  19,  20,  &a)» 

In  conformity  with  these  large  scriptural  views. 
Dr.  Davidson  then  avows  that  in  total  disregard  of  the 
deliverances  of  his  brethren  in  the  General  Assembly 

•Betfew  of  Ch.  Fallo'.rship,  p.  23. 


INCONSISTENCIES    OF    CLOSE    COMMUNION.     101 

he  had  admitted  tu  sealing  ordinances  persons  who  re- 
tain connexion  with  churches  who  hold  to  doetrines 
inconsistent  with  their  -  distinctive  principles,"  and 
that  •he  will  do  so  again  j  that  lie  has  admit  ted  mem- 
bers of  secret  societies  to  his  church,  though  he  him- 
self is  opposed  to  such  societies,  and  that  he  will  do  so 
again. 

Dr.  Davidson,  who  is  a  minister  of  great  earnestness 
and  decision  of  character,  seems  to  have  anticipated 
that  this  free  and  frank  avowal  of  sentiment,  like  tJie 
torch  of  the  visitor  to  the  interior  of  the  Pyramids, 
would  disturb  the  dust  of  time,  and  perhaps  create 
considerable  fluttering  among  a  certain  class  of  his 
brethren.  He  does  not  flinch,  however,  from  any  of 
his  positions,  nor  hesitate  to  meet  their  utmost  conse- 
quences.    Thus  he  concludes  : 

"If,  after  this  free  and  full  confession, nothing  is  done  with 
me,  I  shall  feel  free  to  pursue  the  even  tenor  of  my  way. 
and  shall  believe  that  I  have  violated  ho  law  of  our  church. 
If  men  are  to  be  censured  for  doing  as  I  have  done,  it  is. 
perhaps,  as  well  to  begin  with  me  as  any  other,  and  to 
begin  now  as  at  some  future  time.  And  I  beg  to  declare 
most  seriously,  that  I  write  this  in  no  spirit  of  bitterness  or 
defiance  ;  with  no  design  of  provoking  controversy  or  dis- 
turbance ;  but  I  do  so  because,  after  the  above  quoted  action 
of  our  Assembly,  I  conceive  common  honesty  requires  these 
avowals." 

Dr.  Davidson  had  adopted  sentiments  on  these  sub- 
jects which  seem  quite  in  harmony  with  Presbyterian 
views,  and  we  naturally  inquire  what  was  done  with  so 
rebellious  a  spirit  ?     To   the  best  of  our  knowledge. 


102     INCONSISTENCIES   OF   CLOSE   COMMUNION. 

nothing  lias  ben  done — no  process  of  discipline,  no  re- 
buke of  any  sort  administered.     He  has  held  a  good 
standing  and  an  honorable  position  among  his  brethren 
for   years,  openly  delving  them  to   touch  him   if  'they 
dare  !     He  certainly  has  not   the  apology  of  being  of 
the  number  of  the  "  babes."     He  falls  under  the  exact 
description   given  by  Dr.  P.,  viz.,  of"  those  who  hold 
principles  opposed  to  the  Testimony  of  the  church" — 
"who  assume  the  attitude,       *     *     *     act  the  part  of 
unruly  children,  and  therefore  it  behooves  the  church, 
as  a  prudent  mother,  to  apply  the  rod  with  a  view  to 
their  reformation,  and  deprive  them  for  the  time  being 
of  the   distinguishing  privileges  of  the  household  of 
faith."'*-'     But   what   has  been    the   matter  with    this 
•'•  prudent  mother"  for  so  many  years  '(     Are  we   to 
conclude  "that  her  eye  is  dim  and  her  natural  strength 
abated;"  and  that  the  rod  has  fallen  from  her  trem- 
bling hand  ?  * 
Now,  in  view  of  such  inconsistencies  as  those  men- 
tioned, we  ask,  where  is  that  "fidelity  of  the  church  to 
Christ,  her  Lord  and  King" — that  i :  faithfulness  to  the 
divine  Master"  —  those  "responsibilities   for    a   most 
sacred    trust,"    &c.,    of  which   wc    read    so    much  in 
:;  Church  Fellowship"  and   the   "  Testimony  ?"     Is  it 
too  much  to  say  that  such  practice,  as  in  open  contrast 
with  such  solemn  professions,'  becomes  little  less  than  a 
mockery  —  a   trifling  with  a  serious  subject?1     "  Con- 
sistency is  a  jewel,"  especially  in  spiritual  thing- ;  nor 
is  it  an  inconsiderable  flaw  in   the  religious  character 
of  a   church,  when    language     appears    to    speak    <>ne 

*Ch.  Fellowship,  pp,  51,  •"<:.'. 


INCONSISTENCIES    OF    CLOSE    COMMUNION.       103 

thing,  and  the  practical  convictions  and  conduct  quite 
another.  The  fault  lies  in  professing  extreme  terms 
of  communion  which  conscience  and  sound  sense  reject 
in  practice.  The  church  herself  is  thus  brought  into 
contempt. 

And  so  it  has  always  been.  Dr.  Mason  tells  us  that 
in  his  day,  a  half  century  ago,  his  Associate  Reformed 
brethren  shrank  from  the  practical  application  of  their 
published  terms  of  communion.     He  says  : 

"  When  a  common  person  offers  his  name  as  a  disciple  of 
Christ,  do  they  so  much  as  pretend  to  measure  his  knowledge 
by  the  hcighth,  and  depth,  and  length,  and  breadth  of  their 
public  standards  ?  They  do  not,  not  a  man  of  them.  If 
they  did,  they  might  resign  their  houses  of  worship  to  the 
bats  at  once."  He  adds:  tl  They  receive  their  members 
upon  a  credible  profession  of  faith  in  Christ — and  in  their 
inquiries  into  this  profession,  they  never  go  into  the  details 
of  their  own  standards."* 

These  are  hard  sayings,  but  the  worst  is.  they  arc 
true.  Preaching  and  practice  should  go  hand  iu  hand, 
otherwise  both  lose  their  influence  for  good. 

Such  were  some  of  the  glaring  inconsistencies  between 
the  profession  and  the  practice  of  the  two  bodies  which 
united  form  the  U.  P.  Church.  And  from  the  example 
of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Davidson  and' others,  it  is  plain  that 
these  statements  are  neither  false  nor  slanderous,  when 
alleged  against  the  United  body.  Listen  further  to 
the  testimony  of  some  of  these  brethren  themselves. 
In  the  new  religious  papery  published  at  Cincinnati, 
and  edited  by  such  prominent  U.  P.  ministers  as  Dr. 

*  See  his  Pleo.  p.  3§7.    .         -\  Tht  VfHon  Presbyterian. 
10 


104     INCONSISTENCIES  OE   CLOSE   COMMUNION. 

Davidson,  Rev.  D.  M'Dill,  Rev.  W.  0.  M'Cunc  and 
Rev.  J.  A.  P.  M'Gaw,  we  find  the  following  in  an  edito- 
rial of  date  March  1,  1867.  They  speak  of  several  to- 
pics, as, 

(1.)     Psalmody.     These  U.  P.  editors  say  : 

"  It  is  an  undeniable  fact  that  many  United  Presbyterians 
in  and  around  Pittsburgh  sing  the  {  devotional  compositions 
of  uninspired  men'  openly,  loudly  and  repeatedly.  All  ob- 
servant XJ.  P.  ministers  who  have  enjoyed  the  advantages  of 
a  theological  training  at  Allegheny  within  the  last  fifteen 
years  are  familiar  with  the  fact.  The  learned  II.  P.  editors 
and  professors,  and  able  and  laborious  pastors  in  the  com- 
munity, are  not  such  monks,  such  theological  Rip  Van  Win- 
kles, as  not  to  know  it.  They  are  not  4so  disingenuous  and 
hypocritical  as  to  pretend  that  none  of  their  members  sing 
uninspired  hymns  when  they  worship  in  other  churches, 
when  they  know  very  well  that  they  do." 

(2.)  Secret  Societies.  The  15th  Declaration  of  the 
"Testimony"  expressly  forbids  membership  in  these 
societies.     Yet  these  U.  P.  brethren  say: 

"  It  can  be  easily  established,  and  we  presume  it  will  not 
be  denied,  that  many  members  of  the  United  Presbyterian 
Church  in  Philadelphia  are  members  of  secret  societies,  and 
consequently  the  fifteenth  article  of  the  Testimony  is  not  en- 
forced as  law  in  that  locality." 

Again  : 

<■''  It  is  a  fact  that  this  secret  society  article  is  nut  enforced 
as  law  in  some  of  these  Presbyteries  on  East,  and  these  breth- 
ren must  know  it.  Enlightened  Philadelphia  falls  under  the 
same  condemnation  with  smoky  Pittsburgh,"* 

*  A  correspondent  of  the  Philadelphia  U.  P.  paper,  the  Christian  Instruct 
tor,  in  the  number  for  March  16,  '67  isjequally  anti- Testimony  on  the  subjects 
»f  "  cjoee  communion''  and  Psalmody,    Thu=,  inter  alia,  he  declare? ;  •'•'  I  do 


INCONSISTENCIES    OF    CLOSE    COMMUNION.     105 

(3.)  Pullic  Social  Covenanting.  The  17th  Article 
of  the  '-Testimony"  treats  of  this  subject.  These  U. 
P.  brethren  write  as  follows: 

••'  The  secret  society  article  is  not  enforced  as  law  in  Phil- 
adelphia, nor  the  Psalmody  article  in  Pittsburgh,  nor  is  the 
public  social  covenanting  article  universally  received  as  an 
article  of  faith  out  this  way  (viz.,  Cincinnati  and  the  region 
roundabout),  where  we  esteem  ourselves  decidedly  more  or- 
thodox and  consistent.  These  things  are  well  known,  and 
amongst  intelligent  men  there  is  no  question  as  to  the  facts . 
The  great  issue  is,  shall  we  have  liberty  to  state  these  facts. ;; 

These  alleged  facts,  which  are  proclaimed  as  noto- 
rious and  undeniable  by  any  intelligent  member  of  the 
V.  P.  Church,  require  no  comment  from  us.  The 
Cincinnati  editors,  however,  do  not,  as  the  reader  will' 
conjecture,  counsel  the  immediate  application  of  "the 
rod  of  discipline."  They  say  in  regard  to  these  unruly 
members  in  Pittsburgh  and  Philadelphia  :  "  We  would 
not  advise  you  to  exclude  them  at  once,  as  this  might 
painfully  deplete  your  own  congregations,  and  crowd 
uncomfortably  sister  churches." 

In  a  more  solemn  tone  they  then  refer  to  those  who 
hold  the  "keys  of  discipline,"  thus  : 

■'  They  have  read  the  Saviour's  solemn  denunciation, '  Woe 
unto  you  also,  ye  lawyers !  for  ye  lade  men  with  burdens 
grievous  to  be  borne,  and  ye  yourselves  touch  not  the  burdens 
with  one  of  your  fingers.'  And  they  would  not  dare  to  cast 
mon  out  of  the  church  for  not  enforcing  as  law  that  which 

not  think  it  would  much  affect  Christianity,  as  a  system,  whether  'close 
communion'  or  '  the  exclusive  use  of  the  Psalms/  for  instance,  were  voted 
up  or  down."'  Here  is  a  call  for  "  the  rod"  in  another  quarter,  at  the  East, 
as  well  as  at  the  West  and  in  our  smoky  city. 


106      INCONSISTENCIES    OF    CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

they  themselves  do  not  enforce ;  as  we  must  all  so  soon  face 
death  and  judgment.'' 

In  conclusion  of  this  topic  :  If  these  witnesses  speak 
the  truth  (of  which  there  can  be  no  doubt),  our  argu- 
ment is  complete.  It  is  not  merely  inconsistent — it  is 
morally  wrong  to  exhibit  before  a  scoffing  world  such 
lofty  pretensions  of  religious  "responsibility."  in  direct 
and  violent  contrast  with  such  "lame  and  impotent 
conclusions."  And  the  theory  which  demands  and 
receives  such  costly  sacrifices  from  otherwise  good  and 
conscientious  men,  must  be  a  false  theory.  "The  tree 
is  known  by  its  fruit." 

It  is  proper  to  add,  that  the  ••  Adopting  Act"  under 
which  i\ie  two  Synods  were  united  in  the  IT.  P.  body, 
contains  the  following  clause:  "That  forbearance  in 
love  as  the  law  of  God  requires,  shall  be  exercised  to- 
ward any  brethren  who  cannot  fully  subscribe  to  the 
Standards,  so  long  as  they  do  not  determinedly  oppose 
!li cm.  &c."  This  is  very  well — but  as  regards  Dr.  Da- 
vidson and  others,  they  have  for  years  u  determmedSff 
opposed"  close  communion,  &c.  Neither  the  "Testi- 
mony." however,  nor  Dr.  P.  on  "  Church  Fellowship." 
gives  the  smallest  hint  of  the  existence  of  any  such 
"forbearance  act"  toward  any  but  "babes  who  cannot 
give  an  intelligent  assent  to  some  of  the  more  sublime 
doctrines  of  the  creed."  The  "  Testimony,"  says.  Dr. 
P.,  "declares  that  the  church  should  not  extend  com- 
munion to  those  wJw  refuse  adherence  to  the  profession 
(viz.,  of  all  her  principles)  which  she  has  made."  Why 
the  Doctor  so  mercifully  abstains  from  "the  .use  of  the 


PROOF-TEXT?   EXAMINED.  107 

rod"  upon  the  rebellious  in  and  around  Pittsburgh,  we 
cannot  tell.  Surely  these  numerous  "disorderly  ones" 
are  not  all  "  babes !"  Neither  do  the  Pittsburgh  error* 
pertain  to  "the  sublime  doctrines/7 


CHAPTER    IX. 

PROOF-TEXTS  EXAMINED. 

flpHE  author  of  "Church  Fellowship"  quotes  several 
*=i  passages  of  Scripture,  which  he  intcrpets  so  as  to 
exclude  from  communion  all  who  do  not  adopt  the  U. 
P.  Confession  and  Testimony.  "  babes"  excepted.  Such 
a  text  he  thinks  is  the  third  verse  of  Jude : 

:i  Ye  should  earnestly  contend  for  thnfaith_wliich  was  once 
delivered  to  the  saints." 

This  passage  would  undoubtedly  settle  the  whole 
question,  if  several  things  were  first  proved,  such  as, 
{1}  if  there  were  no  way  of  "contending  for  the  faith" 
but  by  exclusion  from  the  Lord's  Supper  and  from 
baptism;  (2)  if  the  "faith  once  delivered"  meant  all 
the  particular  teachings  of  the  Confession  and  Testi- 
mony ;  and  (3)  if  it  were  certain  that  the  Apostle  had 
reference  to  those  differences  which  exist  among  real 
Christians — whereas  the  very  reverse  is  the  obvious 
truth.  He  refers,  as  the  immediate  context  proves,  to 
"  ungodly  men,  turning  the  grace  of  God  into  lascivious- 
ne*s,  and  denying  the  only  Lord  God,  and  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ," 
10* 


108  PROOF-TEXTS   EXAMINED. 

We  have  already  shown  what  sort  of  .a  ''creed"  the 
xVpostles  contended  for  when  admitting  persons  to  seal- 
ing ordinances.  "If  thou  believest  with  all  thine 
heart  V3  Believe  what?  "  That  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son 
of  God."  "Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou 
shalt  he  saved."  A  credible  profession  of  heart-felt 
faith  in  the  primitive  ••creed,"  which  Dr.  P.  says  "was 
brief  and  simple,  embracing  a  few  of  the  leading  fun- 
damental doctrines  of  the  Bible" —  was  the  apostolic 
method  of  admitting  to  sealing  ordinances.  We  fol- 
low their  example,  and  believe  that  Dr.  P's.  interpre- 
tation tortures  the  text  from  its  true  and  obvious  mean- 
ing. 

Of  the  same  sort  of  misapplication  is  the  appeal  to 
Rom.  1G  :  17  :  "I  beseech  you,  brethren,  mark  them 
which  cause  divisions  and  offenses  among  you,  contrary 
to  the  doctrine  which  ye  have  learned;  and  avoid  them." 
The  next  verse  shows  what  sort  of  persons  the  apostle 
alluded  to:  "They  serve  not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
but  their  own  belly  ;  and  by  good  words  and  fair  speech- 
es deceive  the  hearts  of  the  simple/'  But  did  these 
persons  make  "a  credible  profession  of  faith  in  Christ  ?" 
"Whatever  they  professed,"  says  the  judicious  Dr. 
Scott,  "they  did  not  serve  Christ  or  seek  his  glory  in 
what  they  did,  but  rather  sought  the  indulgence  of  their 
appetites,  and  advanced  or  zealously  contended  for  their 
peculiar  opinions,  in  order  to  support  themselves  and 
Woe  in  plenty  without  lalor."  Xow  we  cordially  agree 
with  Dr.  P.  that  wherever  he  finds  such  persons,  he 
should  "avoid  them,"  i.  e.  "have  no  fellowship  with 


PROOF-TEXTS    EXAMINED.  109 

them."  Such  deceivers,  if  found  in  the  church,  should 
at  onc3  be  put  out  of  it.  But  what  has  this  to  do 
with  the  exclusion  of  the  most  pious  and  eminently 
devoted  members  of  those  which  even  Dr.  P.  calls  "  sis- 
ter churches?"  He  might  about  as  reasonably  quote 
Christ's  denunciation.  "Woe  unto  you,  lawyers,"  to 
prove  that  no  member  of  the  bar  should  be  received  to 
the  Lord's  Supper  !  And  as  regards  the  crime  of  "  caus- 
ing divisions,"  the  Rev.  Mr.  M'Cune  has  clearly  proved 
that  the  rigid  enforcement  of  Dr.  P's.  theory  of  com- 
munion would  lead  to  the  legitimate  consequence,  that 
•'no  church  could  be  organized  on  earth  with  so  many 
as  two  members"* — for  the  plain  reason  that  no  two 
persons  in  the  world  agree  in  their  interpretation  of 
every  thing  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  Even  Dr.  P. 
admits  that  "  there  will  always  exist  some  diversity  of 
opinion  in  the  church,"  and  "a  great  diversity  in  the 
degrees  of  their  gracious  attainments'^  But  at  the 
same  time  he  strongly  denies  "the  right  of  the  church 
to  receive  into  her  fellowship  one  who  rejects  the  truth 
or  refuses  to  observe  any  iking  which  Christ  has  com- 
manded"—  or  " which  Christ  has  revealed  in  his 
wor<J." 

Certainly  Dr.  P.  and  those  who  agree  with  him,  are 
by  pre-eminence  "those  who  cause  divisions."  Well 
might  Dr.  Mason  say,  that  if  such  a  theory  were  en- 
forced, "there  would  be  no  place  in  the  church  for  one 
Christian  in  ten  thousand.  And  were  the  example  uni- 
versal, not  a  church  of  God  would  be  left  start  ding  from 

•  *  Review  of  Church  Fellowship,  p.  20i 

fCh.  Fell.,  p.  33. 


110  PROOF-TEXTS   EXAMINED, 

the  rising  to  the  setting  sun."*  Dr.  M.  of  course  does 
not  mean  that  a  true  Christian  will  knowingly  reject 
-any  truth  which  Christ  has  revealed" — for  only  in- 
fidels do  that.  But  he  does  mean  that  if  such  a  creed 
as  Dr.  P.  prescribes  for  receiving  to  sealing  ordinances 
were  put  in  practice,  no  two  persons  could  unite  to  form 
a  church  !  For  if  there  were  no  other  difficulty  in  the 
way,  it  would  require  a  little  lifetime  for  any  two  per- 
sons to  compare  their  views  on  all  the  teachings  of  the 
Scriptures,  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  they  were 
agreed  or  not ! 

The  friends  of  catholic  communion  maintain  as  stren- 
uously as  Dr.  P.  can  do,  that  the  church  is  bound  to 
''teach  (though  not  as  terms  of  communion )  all  things 
whatsoever  Christ  has  commanded" —  or  as  otherwise 
expressed,  "the  apostles'  doctrine."  But  as  he  admits 
that  there  always  will  be  "a  diversity  of  opinion  in  the 
Church,"  the  question  is  this:  -'In  order  to  commu- 
nion, must  there  be  perfect  harmony,  where  he  admits 
there  always  will  be  -diversity?'"  With  the  single  ex- 
ception of  "babes,"  does  Dr.  P.  really  believe  that  i]\e 
,(J.  P.  Church  is  bound  to  exclude  from  communion  c,'all 
who  reject  any  our.  truth  of  the  Bible;"  reject  it.  not 
because  it  is  ua  truth,"  but  because  they  cannot  agree 
with  him  and  others  that  it  is  revealed  in  the  Bible  ? 
There  is  the  gist  of  the  question.  If  his  language  was 
designed  to  bear  the  usual  meaning,  Dr.  P.  answers  this 
question  in  the  affirmative — viz.,  the  U.  P.  Church 
must,  in  faithfulness  to  her  Head,  refuse  fellowship  to 

*  Plea,  p.  357. 


PROOF-TEXTS   EXAMINED.  Ill 

every  one  who,  in  the  U.  P.  sense,  -rejects  any  one. 
truth  which  Christ  has  revealed  in  his  word/' 

If  Dr.  P.  should  have  even  a  lew  applicants  for  com- 
munion  on  these  terms,  he  will  have  plenty  of  work 
on  his  hands,  both  for  himself  and  his  session. 

How  strongly  in  contrast  with  this  rigid  theory  is 
that  of  Paul.  Rom.  15  :  17.  "Wherefore  receive  ye 
one  another  as  Christ  also  received  us,  to  the  glory  of 
God/'  Christ  received  disciples  limited  in  knowledge 
and  imperfect  in  practice.  Another  rule  is  found  in 
the  14th  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  first 
verse:  "Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith  receive  ye.  but 
not  to  doubtful  disputations. "  Let  no  such  points  as 
true  Christians  differ  about,  keep  vou  from  receiving- 
each  other. 

The  charge,  therefore,  that  all  who  differ  from  the 
U.  P.  Church  on  this  and  other  subjects,  are  guilty  of 
"causing  divisions,"  directly  recoils  upon  the  author 
of  "Church  Fellowship."  He  takes  the  ground  that 
his  church,  having  adopted  their  Confession  and  Tes- 
timony as  terms  of  communion,  it  follows,  he  thinks 
(as  has  been  well  said),  that  all  those  who  will  not  come 
up  and  receive  them.  ucanse  divisions."  So  Rome 
thinks  of  all  Protestant  denominations.  But  who  cause 
the  divisions  ?  Those  who  make  unwarranted  terms 
of  fellowship,  or  those  who  arc  willing  to  commune, 
agreeing  to  the  great  rule  laid  down  by  Paul,  Phil.  3  : 
15,  "And  if  in  anything  ye  be  otherwise  minded,  God 
shall  reveal  this  unto  you;"  agreeing  in  great  essen- 
tials, and  waiting  until  Cod  shall  reveal  the  truth  on 


112  PROOF-TEXT*   EXAMINED. 

minor  points.  This  distinction,  and  rule  of  action,  was 
adopted  by  the  Reformers  and  others,  until  the  ;- Uni- 
formity scheme"  was  started,  which  has  kept  the  church 
divided,  not  as  different  branches  of  one  great  family, 
who  commune  together  "as  God  offereth  opportun- 
ity," but  divided,  by  schismatic  exclusion  from  the 
••Lord's  table." 

Another  text  which  is  tortured  into  the  service  of 
close  communion,  is  Amos  3 : 8,  "Can  two  walk  together 
except  they  be  agreed  f"  which,  being  interpreted  by 
U.  P.  hermeneutics,  means  this:  -No  two  sincere 
Christians  can  scripturally  commune  together,  unless 
they  first  agree  in  the  truth  and  meaning  of  100  sec- 
tions of  the  thirty-three  chapters  of  the  Confession,  as 
well  as  an  indefinite  number  of  propositions  in  the 
eighteen  "  Declarations"  of  the  "  Testimony  I"  But  how 
was  it  at  the  original  u  Supper,"  where  the  Lord  him- 
self ministered  ?  Did  not  Christ  distribute  the  elements 
of  bread  and  wine  to  those  who  were  not  minutely 
agreed  with  him  on  such  points  as  his  divine  character 
and  spiritual  mission,  &c.,&c.  Had  not  these  "walked 
together"  for  several  years  ?  These  questions  answer 
themselves,  and  utterly  explode  this  argument  of  the 
author  of "  Church  Fellowship.''  The  agreement  which 
the  iuspired  pattern  requires,  is  in  that-  "brief  and 
simple  creed,"  as  Dr.  P.  styles  it,  viz.,  "If  thou  believ- 
est  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  niayest."  They  evidently 
taught  that  all  could  walk  together  in  church-fellowship 
who  were  agreed  in  the  "few  leading  fundamental  doc- 
trines" which  Dr.  P.  says  "were  embraced  in  this 
creed." 


PROOF-TEXTS    EXAMINED.  113 

Again,  wc  are  referred  to  2  Thess.  3 :  6,  as  proof  of 
close  cominuiiioii :  "Nora  we  command  you,  brethren, 
in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  with- 
draw yourselves  from  every  brother  that  walketh  dis- 
orderly, and  not  after  the  tradition  which  ye  received 
of  us." 

The  "disorderly"  persons  here  described  arc  subse- 
quently marked  as  those  who  "  would  not  work/'  but  were 
■'busy  bodies" — wishing  "to  eat  other  people's  bread 
for  nought."  Such  idlers,  says  Paul,  though  professing 
to  be  soldiers  of  Christ,  the  great  Captain  of  salvation, 
were  in  truth  base  cowards,  had  "quitted  the  ranks  and 
deserted  their  post" —  for  this  is  the  meaning  of  the 
original  Greek  term  rendered  "disorderly."  They  ap- 
pear to  have  been  those,  says  Dr.  Scott,  the  commen- 
tator, "who  made  religion  a  pretense  for  indolence  and 
for  subsisting  on  the  liberality  of  their  brethren,  with- 
out working  at  their  own  trades  or  occupations" — "  they 
expected  to  be  maintained  in  idleness" — "would  con- 
tract a  sauntering  gossiping  habit" — "  would  inter- 
meddle with  other  men's  concerns,  to  the  disturbance 
of  families,  excite  suspicions  and  jealousies  among  neigh- 
bors, to  the  injury  of  men's  characters." 

Now  we  need  hardly  say  that  from  such  persons  all 
Christians  should  withhold  church  fellowship.  But 
how  can  such  a  fact  give  countenance  to  the  theory 
which  requires  Dr.  P.  to  withdraw  himself,  in  the  eccle- 
siastical sense,  from  Reformed  and  0.  S.  Presbyterians, 
whose  Christian  character  is  orderly,  whose  morals,  to 
z ay  the  least,  are  equally  fair  and  unblamable  with  his 


114  PEOOF-TEXTS    EXAMINED. 

own  ?  Thus  the  simple  statement  of  the  facts  of  the 
case  shows  how  cruelly  this  text  must  be  put  to  the 
torture  in  order  to  make  it  testify  in  favor  of  Dr.  P's. 
theory  of  communion.  But  as  the  passage  appears  to 
he  a  favorite  proof-text  with  him.  let  us  examine  it  a 
little  more  closely. 

1.  It  is  remarkable  that  in  several  pages  of  comment 
upon  this  case,  viz.,  of  him  "who  would  not  work,'' 
Dr.  P.,  like  a  prudent  special  pleader,  gives  not  the 
least  hint  of  the  ddrk  shades  of  character  which  the 
context  attaches  to  the  "  disorderly  person."  If  he 
had  quoted  the  comments  of  the  eminently,  pious  and 
judicious  Scott,  they  would  have  made  his  argument 
look  very  small. 

2.  Dr.  P.  informs  Ins  readers,  that  the  ['  individual 
in  question  is  not  supposed  to  be  one  who  is  living  in 
open  and  flagrant  sin."  But  is  it  not  an  '-open  and 
flagrant  sin"  to  steal  ■ — "  to  seek  to  live  at  other  people's 
expense  and  in  idleness. "  "  by  which  such  persons  were 
liable  to  become  useless  and  mischievous,  and  their 
families  to  be  reduced  to  great  distress" — they  "ex- 
pecting to  be  maintained  in  idleness  by  their  brethren  V* 
Surely  Dr.  P's.  notions  of  "  flagrant  sin''  differ  very 
widely  from  those  of  Dr.  Scott,  the  commentator. 

3.  The  author  of  "  Church  Fellowship"  further  at- 
tempts to  strengthen  his  case,  by  stating  that  the  "dis- 
orderly" one  was  not  -:  a  heathen  man  nor  a  publican"— 
"is  not  said  to  be  afc  unbeliever."  No,  not  in  so  many 
words.  But  had  he  not  "quitted  the  ranks"  of  the 
Christian  host,  and  -deserted  his  post:1'  So  says  Scott 
—  and  we  need  not  describe  the  doom  of  the  deserter  I 


PROOF-TEXTS    EXAMINED.  115 

4.  Dr.  P.  further  relievos  the  dark  coloring  of  the 
picture  of  the  worthless  idler,  who  sought  to  live  upon 
his  Christian  neighbors  (a  species  of  stealing),  by  as- 
suring us  that  he  "  was  wanting  in  some  of  the  charac- 
teristics of  the  dwmpli" — "  there  was  something  either 
in  his  faith  or  life,  or  it  may  be  in  both,  which  was  so 
defective  that  it  became  the  duty  of  the  church  to  tes- 
tify against  his  fault,  whatever  it  might  be."  Here  we 
agree  with  the  Doctor !  There  certainly  must  have 
been  " something" — the -disorderly"  person,  beyond 
all  question,  had  "his  jfowfc,  whatever  it  might  be!" 
What  a  mincing  of  terms  there  is"  here  ?  Who  would 
ever  suspect,  until  he  went  to  his  Bible  and  examined 
for  himself,  that  the  Apostle  was  speaking  of  one  whose 
aim  and  object  was  to  live  in  idleness  and  mischief,  by 
fraud  upon  his  Christian  neighbors ! 

5.  Dr.  P.  further  declares  that  this  ':  disorderly"  per- 
son i;is  supposed  (of  course  by  the  Apostle)  to  be  a 
Christian  brother" — and  he  repeats,  "He  is  supposed 
to  be  a  brother" — "  a  brother  that  walketh  disorderly."* 
From  the  phraseology  used  he  thinks  it  undeniable 
that  the  "disorderly"  person  was  a  Christian,  hopefully 
so  at  least  —  or  as  he  expresses  it,  "not  chargeable 
with  something  utterly  inconsistent  with  Christian 
character.'*  But  Dr.  P.  is  certainly  mistaken  in  this 
judgment.  Wo  concede  that  Paul  gives  him  the  title 
-brother."  But  no  canon  of  sacred  criticism  is  more 
familiar  than  this,  viz..  "that  assertions  of  this  sort  arc 
often  made  in  the  Scriptures,  that   refer  only  to  txtef- 

;:  For  tar  ruse  a?  *t:tlvii    hy  Dr.  \\  <..-<•  <'!'..  l'< •]'..  pp.  52 

n 


116  PROOF-TEXTS    EXAMINED. 

nal  charade)'  and  profession""^  This  man  professed 
Christianity  and  is  called  :' brother" — just  as  Jerusa- 
lem, though  compared  by  Isaiah  to  Sodom  and  Gomor- 
rah, is  called  "the  holy  city,"  into  which  the  saints, 
having  risen  from  the  grave,  went  and  appeared  unto 
many,  after  the  crucifixion.  31att.  28 :  5o.  Thus 
too  pharisaic  pretenders  are  called  by  our  Blessed  Lord 
"righteous:"  "I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous.1* 
Matt.  9  :  13.  So  Paul  speaks  of  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel  as  "  the  foolishness  of  preaching" —  so  considered 
by  the  proud  Greek.  The  Bible  abounds  with  similar 
examples. 

Now  it  is  in  this  apjpar&it  sense  Paul  calls  the  •■dis- 
orderly" one  "  a  brother" — just  as  Christ  promised 
uticelre  thrones  to  the  disciples.  Judas  being  one  of 
them. 

In  this  sense  Paul  applies  the  term  "•brother''  to  the 
i '•  disorderly"  deserter  from  the  Christian  ranks,  who 
desired  to  eat  the  bread  of  idleness,  at  the  expense  of 
the  church  —  he  was  so  professedly,  as  Judas  was  one 
of  the  twelve  who  were  to  "sit  on  thrones." 

That  Paul's  calling  him  "a  brother"  does  not  prove 
that  he  regarded  the  "dis  rderly"  one  as  a  true  dis- 
ciple of  Christ,  nor  even  as  a  credible  professor,  is  fur- 
ther shown  by  the  parallel  passages.  Thus  1  Cor.  5  :  11. 
Paul  admonishes  the  Corinthians -not  to  keep  com- 
pany, if  any  man  that  is  called  a  brother  be  a  fornica- 
tor, or  covetous,  or  an  idolater,  or  a  drunkard,  or  an 
extortioner,  with  such  a  one  no  not  to  cut."    !>i\  I'.  will 

1  M'Oklluufl  ..it  LuUtj.'.   )>.  gOS, 


PROOF-TEXTS    EXAMINED.  117 

hardly  maintain   that   such,    persons  were   -Christian 
brothers, "  or  even  credible  professors. 

So  likewise  in  2  Thcss.  3 :  14,  15,  "If  any  man  obey 
not  our  word  by  this  epistle,  note  that  man,  and  have  no 
company  with  him.  that  he  may  he  ashamed.  Yet  count 
him  not  as  an  enemy,  but  admonish  him  as  a  brother" 
But  if  a  man  "obey  not" — refuses  obedience  to  the 
gospel  as  taught  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  is  he 
to  be.  regarded  as  a  true  disciple  of  Christ,  or  even  as 
exhibiting  a  credible  profession  ?  In  the  same  spirit 
Paul  exhorts  Timothy  (1  Tim.  1  :  5)  '-to  withdraw  him- 
self from  those  who  teach  otherwise  than  the  doctrine 
which  is  according  to  godliness ;  who  were  proud,  hunc- 
iiKj  ftotkmg" — c;men  of  corrupt  minds,  destitute  of  the 
truth,  supposing  that  gain  is  godliness."  This  was 
the  sort  of  "brothers"  Paul  meant.  Dr.  P.  will  hardly 
mince  his  matters  so  nicely  in  these  cases  as  as  in  the 
former  one;  he  will  scarcely  say,  "these  Christian 
toothers  were  wanting  in  some  of  the  characteristics  of 
the  disciple" — "there  was  something  so  defective  that 
the  church  was  required  to  testify  against  their  fault, 
irhalpcer  it  mif/hf  he"  Ts  it  of  this  sort  of  palliation  of 
gross  sins  Mr.  M'Cune  speaks '?  "Account  for  it  as  we 
may,"  he  says,  "some  of  those  who  have  the  most  rigid 
theories  about  the  terms  of  membership  in  the  church 
*  *  *  are  often  disposed  to  connive  at  the  violation 
of  plain  commandments.  With  them  it  is  often  more 
important  to  subscribe  the  creed,  than  to  obey  the 
gospel."*  The  charge  is  a  grave  one,  but  it  comes  from 
that  side  of  the  house,  not  from  ours. 

*  Review  of  Oh.  Fell.,  p.  74, 


118  PROOF-TEXTS    KX  \MIXKD. 

From  such  considerations  as  these  it  appears  very  obvi- 
ous, that  when  Paul  commanded  the  Thessalonian  church 
"to  withdraw  themselves"  from  a  certain  class  of  :'  disor- 
derly" persons,  his  meaning  was  to  exclude  them  by  the 
use  of  discipline  ;  those  persons  having  already  been 
admitted  to  church  fellowship.  One  or  more  deceivers, 
hoping  thereby  to  live  a  life  of  indolence  at  the  expense 
of  the  church,  had,  Minion-Magus  like,  professed  faith 
in  Christ  and  been  received  on  that  credible  profession. 
But  bavins;,  like  the  same  Simon,  betraved  their  idle, 
worthless  habits,  Paul  directs  that  such  "disorderly^ 
drones  be  cast  out  of  the  church.  If  they  refused  tu 
obey  his  solemn  admonitions,  they  must,  as  the  pious 
Henry  expresses  it,  '-come  under  the  censures  of  the 
church.' '  Thus  it  will  be  plain  to  every  one,  that  there 
is  not  the  smallest  allusion  to  the  terms  on  which  per- 
sons are  to  be  received  to  sealing  ordinances.  The  case 
is  that  of  the  enforcement  of  the  discipline  of  the  church 
against ':  disorderly"  members  — a  case  so  plain  and 
clear  that  in  deciding  it  no  two  faithful  pastors  could 
disagree;  not  even  Dr.  P.  himself  would  find  fault 
with  the  judgment  of  M  Old  School  minister.  Tt 
seems  highly  probable,  also,  that  Paul's  directions  in- 
eluded  an  avoidance  of  familiar  and  social  intercourse 
with  persons  of  the  character  described.  We  need 
scarcely  add.  that  .the  passage  gives  no  support  to  the 
theory  of M  close  communion."  which  excludes  the  most 
pious  and  exemplary  of  all  denominations,  except  "  OUR 
OWN  !" 

One  of  the  strangest  misconceptions  in  all  that  Dr. 


\ 


PROOF-TEXTS    EXAMINED.  119 

1*.  has  written  on  this  subject,  is  seen  in  his  reference 
to  such  passages  of  Scripture  as  the  following  in  defense 
of  "close  communion."     lie  says  : 

;:  We  arc  solemnly  commanded  in  the  word  of  God  to  'buy 
the  truth  and  not  sell  it ;'  to  be  well  (  established  in  the  truth  ;' 
and  carefully  to  guard  against  heing  '  carried  about  by  every 
wind  of  doctrine."  :  Hold  fast,"  says  one  apostle,  'the  form 
of  sound  words  which  thou  hast  received.'  'Whosoever,' 
says  another  apostle,  'abioVth  not  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 
hath  not  God.?" 

On  the  ground  of  such  texts  as  these  Dr.  P.  proceeds 
to  misrepresent  the  doctrine  of  catholic  communion  as 
rout  rn<l  id  inij  such  plain  precepts  of  Scripture  "requiring 
ministers  to  he  silent  in  relation  to  some  truth  revealed," 
•to  remain  silent  and  hold  bach  those  truths  by  means 
of  which  God  sanctifies  his  people,  &c,  &c."  So  he 
puts  in  flaming  capitals  the  apostolic  injunction — "I 
charge  thee,  preach  the  WORD" — meaning  that  no 
minister  who  practices  catholic  communion  can  faith- 
fully ••  prmrli  the  word"  but  must  be  silent,  etc. 

Xow  the  easiest  way  to  expose  this  sort  of  logic,  is  to 
take  an  example,  thus  :  An  0.  S.  minister  allows  a  pious, 
exemplary  Calvinistic  Baptist  to  sit  with  his  people  at 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Must  he  therefore  never  preach 
nn  infant  baptism  or  against  the  exclusive  necessity  of 
immersion  !  What  lolly.  The  same  minister  invites 
to  the  communion  a  godly  "United  Presbyterian  :  does 
it  thence  follow  that  lihe  must  be  silent3  in  relation  to 
the  duty  of  singing  other  songs  than  the  book  of 
Psalms?  How  absurd  in  Dr.  P.  gravely  to  publish 
11* 


• 


120  PROOF-TEXTS    EXAMINED. 

over  his  own  signature  such  a  .sentence  as  the  following  : 
';  According  to  the  theory  of  catholic  communion,  all 
distinctive  principle*  MUST  BE  DROPPED."*  It  would 
have  been  equally  true  if  he  had  said,  that  according 
to  that  theory  our  church  doors  must  he  closed  against 
all  hut.  0.  S.  Presbyterians ! ! 

When  Philip  baptized  the  Eunuch  on  the  profession 
of  a  belief  with  the  heart  in  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God, 
he  surely  did  not  oblige  himself '-to  be  silent"  ever 
after  on  all  other  great  truths  of  the  Bible. 

But  perhaps  it  may  be  said  that  ]>r.  P.  simply  means 
bv  -:  remaining  silent.  &'e.,"  that  the  advocate  of  catho- 
lie  communion,  in  the  case  of  the  Baptists  for  example, 
cannot  press  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  as  a  term 
of  communion  upon  the  intended  communicant.  To 
such  a  statement  we  reply,  that  we  cannot  tell  what  Br. 
P.  fnehhs,  except  by  what  he  says.  We  have  quoted 
his  own  language  above.  Tf  he  merely  meant  that 
such  a  distinctive  principle  as  infant  baptism  must  not 
be  thrust  forward  as  a  term  of  communion  in  deciding 
the  right  of  a  pious  Baptist  to  an  occasional  seat  at  the 
Lord's  Supper,  he  is  certainly  correct.  But  this  is 
merely  Hating  our  doctrine,  not  refuting  it.  The  si/nice 
in  this  case  only  proves  that  we  copy  apostolic  ex- 
ample. 

*  United  Pi'tsbyterian.  March  20.  TSG7 


FALLACIES  DETECTED.  121 


CHAPTER    X. 

FALLACIES    DETECTED. 

^N  the  foregoing  investigation  we  have  purposely 
■^  limited  the  argument  to  the  subject  of  :- commu- 
nion in  sealing  ordinances,"  viz..  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper.  This  has  been  chiefly  for  two  reasons.  (1) 
Because  the  author  of  "Church  Fellowship"  admits 
that  persons  "in  connection  with  different  ecclesiastical 
organizations  can  hold  communion  in  reading  and  in 
hearing  the  word  of  God,  in  prayer,  *  *  *  *  * 
and  in  such  like  devotional  exercises."*  "This  com- 
munion." he  adds,  "is  founded  on  union  in  the  common 
Christianity" — and  "may  be  enjoyed  by  those  not  for- 
malty  connected  with  any  part  of  the  visible  church." 
It  is  only  in  regard  to  "fellowship  in  sealing  ordinan- 
ces" that  he  takes  the  bold  position,  "that  those  who 
refuse  to  forsake  a  communion  inconsistent  with  the 
(U.  P.)  profession,"  "in  sopie  vc$pccf$  walk  disorder- 
ly"— i'iu  soy™  respects  do. uot  c$l]  upon  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  in  a  scriptural  manner,"  and  thus 
"remaining  in  connection  with  a  xi/zteni  of  error, 
the  (U.  P.'j  church  may  not  be  a  partaken  of  tl>t',r  sin 
by  receiving  them  into  her  fellowship" — viz..  to  bap- 
tism and  tha  Lord's  Supper,. "j"     It  is  pleasant  to  find 

*Ch.  Fail.,  p30«  tUudk,  p.  68. 


I2l_'  FAELACIBB    i»i:tk<tkv». 

Dr.  P.  admitting  that  such  Christians  as  the  Covenant/ 
ers  and  Old  School  Presbyterians  'can  hold  commu- 
nion" with   the  I.  P.  body  in  anything  —  even  so  far 
as  "in  reading  and  hearing  the  word  of  God/' 

This  is  certainly  something  gained  —  for  Mr.  M'Cune 
tells  us  that  "some  of  the  ministers  and  members  of 
the  Associate  and  Associate  Reformed {Churches,  who 
in  the  past  opposed  catholic  eommuniOn,  did  also  *;c  * 
peremptorily  forhid  their  meriiher*  to  hear  tlw  gospel 
preached  by  ministers  of  other  evangelical  denomi- 
nations."* We  are  glad  to  indulge  the  hope  that  Pr. 
P.  is.  not*  like-minded  with  such  exclusives. 
.  (2)  The  second  reason  for  confining  the  discussion 
to  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  is?  that  the  T'.  P. 
Testimony  (Art.  16)  seems  to  indicate  a  somewhat 
similiar  limitation  — "Tim  church  should  not  extend 
communion  in  sealing  ordinances  to  those  who  refuse 
adherence  to  her  profession,  &c.,  kc"  It  must  be 
acknowledged,  however,  that  a  subsequent  clause  of 
the  -Article"  has  a  strong  squinting  toward  the  old 
exclusive  practice  exposed  by  Mr.  M'Cune.  Thus  we 
read — "Nor  should  communion  in  any  ordinance  of 
w,or$1iip  (reading,  hearing,  prayer,  &e.)  be  held  nnder 
such  circumstances  as  would  be  inconsistent  with  the 
keeping  of  those  ordinances  pure  and  entire,  or  so 
as  to  give  countenance  to  any  torrujtiion:  &ci"  This 
will  bear  a  very  wide  interpretation  —  so  wide  as  to 
include  at  least  the  Reformed  Presbyterians  and  the 
().  S.  Presbyterians.  Dr.  Kerr  too  assures  us  that  the 
Westminster    divines   intended  "as    a   general   rule,  to 

*  Rev.  Of  Ch.  Fell,,  p.  100. 


J'AM.ACTKS    bKTI-OTKD.  121 

make  communion  and  uniformity  of  profession  co-exten- 
sive^' and  with  this  ho  entirely  agrees.*}'  Now  as  both 
the  Covenanters  and  we  Old  School  Presbyterians  -'re- 
fuse to  forsake  our  system*  of  error"  and  unite  with  the 
U.  Presbyterians;  and  as  thus  we  refuse  ••  uniformity 
of  profession.'"  it  follows  that  to  worship  with  any  of 
eur  churches  would  of  course  ••  give,  countenance  to 
our  roD'vulioiix,"  and  should  be  conscientiously 
avoided. 

In  the  same  spirit  the  author  of  '-Church  Fellow- 
ship.'' in  a  subsequent  passage,  inculcates  the  same 
sentiment,  at  least  so  far  as  regards  the  matter  of 
praise.  For  he  plainly  tells  us  (p.  59)  '-that  when 
one  believes  that  ir  is  proper  to  worship  God  in  the 
use  of  uninspired  songs  of  praise,  while  another  regards 
the  use  of  these  songs  in  such  worship  as  a  corruption, 
they  can/tot  have  fellowship  in  this  part  of  religious 
worship."  If  this  be  true,  there  must  be  a  large  num- 
ber of  the  members  of  the  U.  P.  ehurches  who  ''cannot 
have  fellowship  in  this  part  of  their  worship."  even  in 
their  own  churches.  For  we  have  the  authority  of  the 
U.  P.  editors  of  the  Union  Presbyterian  that  many 
of  their  members  are  guilty  of  using  these  tx corrup- 
tions" in  public  and  social  praise  —  and  that  too  in 
and  around  this  centre  of  unity,  orthodox  Pitts- 
burgh!  They  not  only  believe  such  a  practice  " pro- 
per." as  Dr.  P.  hath  it* — but  worse  still,  they  practice 
what  they  think  right.  How  it  happens  that  Dr.  P. 
continues  "to  hold  fellowship"  witb these  wrrupterM 
of  a   Christian  ordinance,  is  for   himself   to   explain. 

t  r.  P.  Quarterly  Review,  Jan.  I860,  p.  139. 


1U4  rAi.ivunis   iiF/ri:<'iM:i». 

IV.  Davidson  and  the  other  editors  of  the  Union  Pres- 
byterian insist  that  ho  does  this  wicked  thing  kitoitr- 
irtgly. 

The  Presbyterian  Witness,  a  1T.  P.  paper,  denounces 
the  -'use  of  .uninspired  SongS  of  praise''  as  idolatry'. 
because  it  is  a  breach  of  the  second  commandment  ! 
Other  writers  h-ave  said  the  same.  Of  course  it  fol- 
lows, that  in  retaining  these  "corrupters  of  worship*' 
in  his  church.  Dr.  P.  holds  fellowship  with  "  idolaters  !"' 
But  this  is  a  digression. 

It  is  assumed  by  these  brethren,  that  to  partake  of 
these  ^sealing  ordinances"  in  a  scriptural  manner  with 
any  Church,  necessarily  implies  agreement  in  •■all  the 
principles"  of  that  church  —  or  as  Dr.  Kerr  interprets 
the  Westminster  Assembly,  "communion  and  unifor- 
mity of  profession  mnst  be  co-extensive."  But  no  one 
would]  ever  suspect  that  this  was  the  meaning  of  the 
Assembly  from  their  definition  of  "  S  sacrament,"  viz.. 
•'A  holy  ordinance  instituted  by  Christy  wherein  by 
sensible  signs,  Christ  and  the.  benefits  of  the  new  cove- 
nant are  represented,  sealed  and  applied  to  belieieiH" 
Did  they  mean,  believers  in  the  one  hundred  and  sixty 
complex  sections  of  the  thirty-three  ehapters  of  their 
Confession  of  Faith  ;  to  say  nothing  of  as  many  "  De- 
clarations" of  a  "Testimony"  as  any  church  might  see 
lit  to  issue  against  the  supposed  errors  of  their  fellow 
Christians  !  Can  any  person  of  sound  judgment  believe 
this!''  Thus  too  the  Assembly  say — "Baptism  *  ;: 
is  to  be  administered  to  such  as  profess  their  fctitli 
in  Christ  and  obedience  to  him."     Airain  :  "The  Lord's 


FALLACIES  DETECTED.  125 

Supper  is  a  sacrament  *  *  *  worthily  received 
by  faith" — ••'the  worthy  receivers  must  examine 
themselves  of  their  knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's 
body,  of  their  faith  to  feed  upon  him,  of  their  repent- 
ance, love  and  new  obedience  ;  which  are  the  fruits 
of  faith."  All  this  is  merely  the  full  and  obvious  re- 
quirement of  the  Evangelist  in  reply  to  the  question. 
•What  hinders  that  I  may  be  baptized  ?"  Philip  said. 
•If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest." 
The  action  then  follows:  "They  went  down  both  of 
them  into  (to)  the  water;  and  he  baptized  him."  "Be- 
lieving with  all  the  heart."  is  only  another  expression 
for  '-faith  in -Christ  and  obedience  to  him."  as  the 
Westminster  divines  have  it.  It  was  largely  proved 
in  a  former  chapter,  that  those  honored  fathers  imposed 
n«i  such  impracticable  terms  of  communion  as  the 
••  Testimony"  prescribes. '•''     '-Communion  is  indeed  an 

""Since  the  above  was  written,  we  liud  in  the  Uitian  Presbyterian,  a  I.  P. 
paper,  thp.  following  extract  from  the  Constitution  of  the. Associate  Reformed 
Church,  as  adopted  in  178:2.  Referring  to  the  _'Gtli  chapter  of  the  Westmin- 
ister Confession  on  Communion,  tin-  A.  It.  Synod  lit  tin.  7th  Article  say. 

•'But  a-  occasional  comnniiiion.  in  a  divided  state  of, the  church,  may  pro- 
duce great  disorders,  if  ii  be  not  conducted  with  much  wisdom  and  moder- 
ation, they  (the  Associate  deformed  Synod)  esteem  themselves,  and  the 
people  under  their  inspection,  inviolably  bound,  in  all  ordinary  case*,  to  sub- 
niitito  every  restriction  of  their  liberty  which  general  edification  renders 
necessary" 

To  this  expression  of  their  views  mi  occasional  communion,  the  editor? 
further  say,  that  the  A.  II.  Synod  odd  a  foot-note,  declaring  that  ''the  prin- 
ciple thus  expressed  is  not  new  :"  that  it  "is  set  in  a  very  strong  light  in 
the  26th  chapter  of  the  Confession,  which  largely  describes  the  communion 
of  the  ecUJiplic  church."  and  that  ■•  the  article  containing  it  is  not  to  be  cou- 
. trued  as  a  license  to  hold  un#cripturul  communion  with  other  cliurchesl" 

It  will  be  observed  that  these  are  the  same  views  of  the  meaning  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  which  a  few   years  later    were   embodied   in  th.» 

Overture"  by  Mr  Annan,  as  \r:\>  shown,  in  a  former  chapter  pf  this  work 


126  FALLACIES  DETECTED. 

act  and  an  expression  of  union."  "  Christians  and  Chris- 
tian churches  arc  united.  They  are  one  in  interests 
infinitc-W  more  valuable,  in  bonds  infinitely  more  strong 
than  all  the  other  interests  which  subdivide  them. 
For  sectarian  communion  you  must  be  united  in  a 
sect;  but  for  Christian  communion,  you  must  be  united 
to  Christ."*  This  is  the -union"  which  apostolic  pre- 
cept and  example  clearly  require.  All  beyond*  this  is 
mere  human  device,  a  }roke  which  no  church  has  any 
right  to  bind  upon  the  necks  of  those  who  are  credible 
professors  of  faith  in  Christ  —  which  even  Dr.  P.  ac- 
knowledges 0.  S.  Presbyterians  and  others  to  be.  He  in- 
deed ventures  to  improve  the  apostolic  pattern  by  adding. 
:i  they  must  submit  to  her  (U.  P.)  authority,  "f  But  in 
this  he  merely  assumes  that  he  is  wiser  than  his  Maker  ! 
This  is  of  a  piece  with  his  declaration  of  the  office  of  a 
creed,  viz.,  ;'to  state  them  ("the  great  truths  of  the 
Bible")  in  plain,  intelligible  language."  From  this  we 
infer  that  the  Scriptures  arc  not  written  in  "plain,  iu- 
tclligible  language."  This  is  good  Popery,  but  nothing 
better.     The  chief  office  of  a  creed  is  to  comprise   iu 

i:  Mason'.?  Pica,  p.  339, 

f  Though  Dr.  P"s.  book  ou  (Jhurch  Fellowship  was  published  by  the  U.  P 
Board  of  Publication  at  Pittsburgh,  it  is  gratifying  to  find  that  a  correspond- 
ent of  the  Christian  Instructor  (a  U.  P.  paper).,  of  Philadelphia  (Dec.  '66), 
speaks  of  Dr.  P's.  theory  as  "  an  extreme  view,"  "a  piece  of  High  Church- 
ism,"  "more  rigid  and  exclusive  than  is  warranted  by  the  Bible,  <tc."  This 
is  a  voice  from  the  Ka=t.  as  Mr.  M'Cune  and  others  have  sounded  the  alarm 
from  the  "West.  It  has  been  estimated  that  the  Westminster  Confession. 
Catechisms  and  V.  P.  ■•Testimony"  contain  not  less  than  seven  thousand  pro- 
positions in  theology  and  morals.  These  constitute  "the  creed,"  "  the  prin- 
ciples," "the  terms  of  communion"  of  the  U.  P.  Church.  How  it  is  possible 
to  enforce  such  a  creed,  when  youth  and  other  comparatively  uneducated 
pwsone  apply  for  privileges,  is  a  d,ifficuU  tjuesifbti. 


FALLACIES  DETECTED.         127 

brief  for  the  use  of  the  church,  the  great  truths  which 
are  plainly  and  intelligibly  taught  in  the  Scriptures. 
The  Bible  is  not  a  regular  system  of  truth,  constructed 
according  to'a  certain  logical  order.  It  combines  al- 
most every  species  of  composition.  The  creed  arranges 
the  scattered  teachings  of  a  large  volume,  and  conden- 
ses the  whole  for  convenient  use.  The  word  of  God 
would  poorly  perform  its  great  work  '-as  a  lamp  to 
our  feet  and  a  light  tc*our  path."  if  it  were  not,  to  say 
the  very  least,  equally  "  plain  and  intelligible"  with  a 
•certain  human  "  Testimony  !" 

It  is  curious  to  follow  the  author  of  "Church  Fel- 
lowship" in  his  varied  and  multiplied  efforts  virtually 
to  show  that  the  word  of  God  (in  this  matter  of  terms 
of  communion )  needs  to  be  mended  I  Apparently  he 
was  unable  to  satisfy  himself  with  any  one  or  two  state- 
ments of  his  doctrine.  Hence  he  iterates  and  reite- 
rates it  in  such  forms  as  these  :  "It  is  the  duty  of  the 
church  to  see  that  those  whom  she  admits  to  her  fel- 
lowship, receive  and  hold  fast  the  doctrines  which  arc 
wholesome" — "unite  with  her  in  professing  and  main- 
taining the  truth" — "  the  Apostle's  doctrine,"  &c,  &o.* 
Now  it  must  be  plain  to  every  intelligent  mind',-  that 
whilst  these  statements  of  "  the  duty  of  the  church"  are 
in  general   perfectly  true,  indeed  quite  comiuon-pkce 

*  Similar  expression.- art'  frequent  in  "Church  Fellowship:"  "She  (the 
church)  may  not  be  sihnt  in  relation  to  any  one  truth  which  the  God  of  the 
Bible  has  made  known  to  her"'' — "  may  not  hold  back  any  part  of  the  counsels 
of  God" — '"may  not  connive  at  the  rejection  of  any  ono  truth  In  the  revela- 
tion, &c."  No  Christian  will  deny  any  of  these  common-place  statements, 
viewed  in  the  abstract.  They  are  all  true  —  but  how  do  they  prove  the  apos- 
tolic terms  of  comjmmion  defective!    That  is  the  question. 

12 


128  FALLACIES  DETECTED. 

and  obvious  when  relating  to  the  members  of  the 
church  ;  yet  when  designed  as  an  argument  to  enforce 
the  belief  of  the  160  sections  of  the  Confession  (to  say 
nothing  of  the  Testimony)  upon  all  applicants  for  bap 
tisni  or  the  Lord's  Supper  —  they  then  become  neither' 
more  nor  less  than  practical  attempts  to  amend  the 
sacramental  record  of  the  Saviour  and  the  Apostles  ;■ 
The  Holy  Spirit,  by  those  infallible  teachers,  has  re- 
peatedly stated  the  only  terms  of  admission  to  ;;  scaling 
ordinances/'  and  neither  Dr.  P.  nor  any  other  man  or 
set  of  men  has  a  right  to  impose  pre-requisites  which 
the  Head  of  the  Church  has  not  prescribed,  cither  by 
direct  precept  or  obvious  inference.  It  is  certainly 
very  remarkable,  indeed  quite  unaccountable,  that  art 
author  who  has  written  so  largely  in  defense  of  a  strict 
adherence  to  '-a  literal  inspired  psalmody."  should 
make  so  light  of  the  inspired  record  in  the  present  in- 
stance. 

Similar  examples  of  this  inconsequential  mode  of 
reasoning  are  such  as  these  :  '-They  who  are  associated 
together  in  the  capacity  of  a  church  must  adopt  the 
tame  -great  principles,  and  walk  by  the  same  rule." 
! : The  same  great  principles!"  All  Christians  believe 
this  to  be  true,  understanding  these  great  principles  t--~> 
comprise  just  what  Dr.  P.  says  "the  creed  of  the 
primitive  church"  contained  —  viz..  "a  few  of  the 
leading  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible. "  But  when 
he  builds  on  this  apostolic  foundation  the  doctrine  that 
imposes  a  belief  of  some  hundreds  of  theological  and 
disciplinary  propositions,  many  of  them  very  complex 


f4M*AQJm  DISSECTED.  iQy 

and  abstract,  as  indispensable  to  the  proper  reception 
ci  baptism  or  the  Lord's  Supper,  his  premises  are  quite 
too  narrow  for  his  conclusion  —  his  argument  be,ing 
what  logicians  call  a  non-sequitur — "it  does  not  fol- 
low. -'  We  ask  with  confidence  —  Where  did  you  learn 
"that  it  has  become  necessary  to  enlarge  the  primitive 
creed"  in  this  matter  of  admitting  credible  professors 
of  faith  in  Christ  to  sealing  ordinances?  Popery- 
pleads  for  this  liberty,  because  she  is  infallible,  and  is 
not  bound  by  scriptural  law.  But  Protestants  c*u«h,t 
to  know  better. 

In   the   same   strain    of  false   logic,    the   author  of 
"  Church    Fellowship"    attempts    to    strengthen    his 
euiise  by  an  appeal  "  to  a  right,  which,  he  says,  is  com- 
mon to  all  other  societies,  which  have  their  constitution 
or  creed,"  -the  right  of  self-preservation."      But  all 
intelligent  Christians  will  admit  that  the  only  way  of 
safety    to    the    church,    the    only    true    law    of    self- 
preservation  and  extension,  is  a  strict,  observance  of  the 
instructions  of  her   Divine  Founder.     If  Dr.   P.   will 
show  us  in  the  records  of  i:  primitive  Christianity"  a 
creed  larger  than  the  -:  brief  and  simple"  one  which 
he   says  embraced   ••  a   few   leading  fundamental   doc- 
trims    of   the    Bible."    then,   on    that    condition,    the 
church  will  have  an  unquestionable  right,  nay,  she  will 
be  bound  in  fidelity  to  her  adorable  Head,  to  require 
its   belief  and  reception   of  all   applicants  for  sealing 
uidiuanees,   procidr-d   such   a   use    was   made   of  such 
creed  "  in  the  primitive  days  of  Christianity."     Thus 
it  is  obvious  that  the  analogy  drawn  from  lt  other  soci- 


130         FALLACIES  DETECTED. 

eties"  utterly  fails.  They  may  organize  under  any  rules 
they  think  wisest  and  best,  but  the-  Church  is  of  di- 
vine appointment,  and  is  limited  by  divine  statute  in 
all  that  pertains  to  the  essential  pre-requisites  of  mem- 
bership. 

Much  use  is  made  by  Dr.  P.  of  the  deplorable  fact 
that "  the  church  exists  in  a  divided  state,"  which  he  pro- 
nounces "  unnatural,  and  in  every  way  improper."  "A 
separate  communion"  he  admits.  "  ought  not  to  exist ; 
but  this,  he  adds,  is  the  result  of  a  previously  existing 
evil,  which  must  first  be  removed,  and  then  the  latter, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  will  cease."  i{  It  (division)  is 
the  result  of  the  imperfection  of  our  knowledge  and 
the  remaining  depravity  of  our  nature."  All  this  has 
a  very  plausible  sound,  but  it  simply  means,  that  in  re- 
lation to  ';  terms  of  communion,"  until  all  credible  pro- 
fessors agree  to  adopt  in  full  the  U.  P.  Confession  and 
Testimony,  and  unite  with  us,  "  the  brief  and  simjik 
creed  of  primitive  Christianity"  must  be  laid  aside. 
sunk  in  utter  oblivion  as  to  terms  of  communion,  and 
our  multifarious  proposition  creed  take  its  place  !  Tn 
other  words,  owing  to  "remaining  depravity,"  we  Uni- 
ted Presbyterians  will  discard  Christ's  primitive  creed 
in  admitting  persons  to  sealing  ordinances,  and  substi- 
tute one  of  our  own  ! 

The  logic  of  Dr.  P's.  formal  display  of  words  is  truly 
exquisite.  The  particular  question  before  us,  is  this  : 
"  Ought  the  U.  P.  Church  to  receive  to  her  fellowship 
such  credible  believers  as  Reformed  Presbyterians  and 
Old  School  Presbyterians,  who  are  acknowledged  to  be 


FALLACIES    DETECTED.  1-31 

true  Christians?"  -;  Certainly,"  replies  the  Doctor. 
*'so  soon  as  they  abate  :  the  evil'  of  division,  and  come 
?md  join  us !"  ;:  Is  it  the  will  of  Christ  that  members 
of  these  and  other  Christian  denominations  should  en- 
joy with  us  the  privilege  of  the  Lord's  Supper?" 
■'  Undoubtedly."  responds  Dr.  P.,  "  if  they  <  first  re- 
move the  evil'  by  renouncing  their  ;  errors'  and  become 
one  with  us  I"  Which  is  just  the  same  as  to  argue 
that  all  United  Presbyterian  a  mag  commune  together! 
This  is  the  remarkable  conclusion  arrived  at  through 
pages  of  very  grave  and  formal  ratiocination,  clothed 
in  stately  forms  of  expression. 

The  i:  divided  state  of  the  church"  is  further  enlist- 
ed in  the  service  of  ''close  communion."  thus:  if  It' 
it  particular  portion  of  the  church  has  a  rigid  to  exist 
us  a  distinct  organization,  it  is  her  duty  to  require  of 
ull  who  desire  to  enjoy  her  fellowship,  that  they  unite 
with  her  in  the  reception  of  her  testimony  for  the 
truth  (/.  e.  all  revealed  truth.)  and  in  subjection  to  her 
luithoritv."  But  this  is  mere  assertion,  a  begging  of 
the  question.  From  this  we  are  not  to  infer,  however, 
that  Dr.  P..  believes  all  the  several  evangelical  de- 
nominations ••  have  a  right  to  exist,"  i.  e.  a  right 
from  Christ.  This  we  understand  him  to  deny ;  for  he 
Bays,  ':  the  existence  of  such  a  state  (of  division)  is 
inconsistent  with  the  nature  and  dpsign  of  the  Chris- 
tian church" — >;  it  is  in  every  respect  unnatural  and 
improper."  But  if  some  other  denominations  ff  have 
no  right  to  exist/'  then  by  his  own  argument  it  follows, 
that  they  have  no  scriptural  right  to  require  applicants 

n* 


132  FALLACIES   DETECTED. 

for  communion  "  to  unite  with  them  in  the  reception 
of  the  truth,"  as  they  hold  it.  In  other  words,  his 
argument  proves  that  "  close  communion"  is  not  a  duty 
among  such  churches,  because  such  churches  'have  no 
divine  right  to  exist."  and  of  course  have  no  right  to 
enforce  "  close  communion."  This  argument  cuts 
deep  ;  it  virtually  unchurches  all  such  denominations  ; 
for  they  "  have  no  right  to  exist  !" 

But  admitting  that  in  some  way  not  explained,  the  - 
other  evangelical  denominations,  according  to  Dr.  P.. 
"  have  a  rigid  (from  Christ)  to  separate  existence/' 
though  in  a  condition  ;i  inconsistent  with  the  verv 
nature,  and  design  of  the  Christian  church."  it  follows. 
by  the  same  authority,  that  '•'-  it  is  the  duty"  of  each  of 
these  sects  to  "  require  of  all  who  wish  to  unite  with 
her,  the  reception  of  the  truth."  &•*.  as  they  conceive 
it  to  be  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  But  see  what  this 
will  lead  to.  "  Christ  has  given  the  right,  and  made  it 
the  duty  of  his  church  to  require  the  reception  of  di- 
rectly opposite  doctrines,  when  persons  are  applicants 
for  membership."  One  sect  "  requires  the  belief"  of 
rigid  Calvinism,  another  of  low  Arminianism,  as  the 
final  fall  and  perdition  of  some  true  C Christians,  sinless 
perfection,  &c.  The  TT.  P.  is  in  </utj/  hound  to  require 
the  exclusive  use  of  the  150  Psalms  and  close  commu- 
nion, and  all  the  other  u  declarations"  of  the  Testi- 
mony ;  the  0.  S.  Presbyterian  is  equally  obliged  ;'  in 
fidelity  to  the  truth,"  to  exact  a  belief  of  the  opposite 
doctrines,  and  so  on  indefinitely.  Thus  <;  the  existence 
of  what  is  error"  is  perpetuated,  and  its  inculcation  is 


FALLACIES  DETECTED.  138 

made  obligatory  upon  the  conscience  !  Can  any  one 
in  his  sober  senses  receive  this  as  in  accordance  with 
*-  the  brief  and  simple  creed  of  primitive  Christi- 
anity V  But  we  forget  that  it  "  was  found  necessary 
to  enlarge  the  primitive  creed"  which  was  used  by  the 
Apostles  in  admitting  to  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. At  least  so  says  Dr.  P.  All  evangelical  denomi- 
nations can  unite  in  the  Apostolic  Creed,  for  it  was 
••brief  and  simple."  But  it  is  far  different  with 
the  Confession  and  Testimony. 

But  perhaps  it  may  be  replied,  that  the  same  diffi- 
culty occurs  in  the  application  by  different  sects  of  a  n 
extended  creed  in  receiving  and  ordaining  ministers. 
This  is  a  mistake.  We  do  not  concede  that  Christ 
even  gave  the  right  or  taught  the  duty  of  the  various 
denominations  to  exact  a  belief  of  opposite  doctrines, 
one  sort  of  which  must  be  false.  Truth  is  one,,  not 
diverse.  And  though  men  may  fancy  they- discover 
Arminian  and  similar  errors  in  the  Bible,  our  blessed 
Lord  never  made  it  obligatory  to  impose  them  upon 
candidates  for  any  privilege  or  office  in  the  church. 

One  word  further  as  to  the  right  of  "  a  particular 
portion  of  the  Christian  church  to  a  separate  exist- 
ence." If  a  church  is  constructed  agreeably  to  the 
scriptural  law  of  organization,  she  has  a  right  to  exist. 
not  otherwise.  But  even  such  organizations  have  no 
right  to  enforce  anti-scriptural  laws.  And  as  regards 
the  duty  of  teaching  what  eaeh  church  believes,  it  is 
binding  only  so  far  as  they  believe  tlie  truth.  No  cir- 
cumstances can  prove  that  Christ  has  made  it  a   duty 


184  FALLACIES    DETECTED, 

to  teach  falsehood.  The  fact  that  a  society  of  profess- 
ing Christians  have  received  error  as  truth,  a  Sects  not 
the  merits  of  the  question,  nor  alters  the  nature  of 
moral  obligation.  This  is  so  plain  as  to  be  almost  self- 
evident. 

Another  of  the  plausible  fallacies  put  forth  by  the 
author  of  ;;  Church  Fellowship/'  is  this  :  the  different 
sects  must  maintain  "  close  communion."  otherwise, 
they  virtually  acknowledge  their  i:  separate  existence 
to  be  unwarrantable,  and  its  continuance  must  involve 
the  guilt  of  schism."* 

The  continued  separation  of  an  individual  professor 
or  a  number  of  them  from  the  visible  church,  'u 
always  and  unquestionably  a  very  serious  step.  Luther 
was  ions  in  arriving  at  the  conclusion  that  he  must 
•'come  out"  even  from  idolatrous  Home;  and  what  is 
much  more  impressive  .as  an  example,  we  know  that 
our  blessed  Lord  and  his  Disciples,  as  also  many  other 
eminently  pious  persons,  remained  in  communion  with 
the  Jewish  Church  until  the  organization  under  the 
New  Testament  form,  though  the  old  church  had  fear- 
fully  apostatized,  and  in  fact  was  little  better  than  a 
•'-  don  of  thieves."  Still  it  seems  to  be  generally  ad- 
mitted, that  cases  may  and  do  occur  which  justify  such 
reparation  and  the  continued  existence  of  distinct  or- 
ganizations. But  it  may  be  well  for  those  who  are  so 
strenuously  upholding  these  ecclesiastical  divisions,,  tu 
consider  prayerfully  the*e  questions:  i;  Is  the  diver- 
sity of  faith  and  morals  which  keeps  them  separate 
from  other  bodies  of  Presbyterians,  so  great  as  the  ig- 

*Chtircla  fellowship,  p.  38. 


FALLACIES  DETECTED.  135 

norance  and  error  of  the  Disciples,  whom  our  Saviour 
formed  into  the  New  Testament  organization  V  Are 
the  errors  of  the  brethren  from  whom  you  stand  aloof 
to  be  compared  with  those  of  Peter,  who  rebuked 
Christ  because  he  had  said  he  must  go  to  Jerusalem 
and  be  hung  upon  the  cross,  and  which  caused  liis 
Master  to  say,  "Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan?"  Proba- 
bly few  Christians  of  the  present  day  would  be  willing 
to  belong  to  a  church  composed  entirely  of  persons  so 
deeply  in  error  as  to  the  divine  character,  mission  and 
sacrificial  work  of  Christ,  as  were  the  eleven  Disciples. 
Yet  the  Master  himself  formed  them  into  his  New 
Testament  Church.  And  can  any  doubt  for  a  mo- 
ment, that  such  pious  Jews  as  Simeon,  Anna  and 
others,  if  they  had  been  present  at  the  Passover, 
would  also  have  been  welcome  to  the  subsequent  eu- 
eharistic  feast,  though  their  views  of  certain  points 
might  have  been  very  obscure  and  defective  ? 

These  facts  may  perhaps  prepare  the  way  for  an  an- 
swer to  Dr.  P's  question,  '-'  Why  does  division'  in 
the  church  become  a  necessity?"  But  whatever  may 
be  said  of  such  clear  cases  as  that  of  Luther,  the  pre- 
vious question  should  be  with  all  true  Presbyterians. 
••  Is  there  such  a  necessity  ?"  Dr.  P.  says  "  the  neces- 
sity arises  from  what  is  regarded  as  error  among  the 
professed  disciples  of  Christ."  But  it  is  notorious  to 
all  well  informed  persons,  and  has  been  abundantly 
demonstrated  in  our  former  chapters,  that  most  of  the 
errors  in  other  bodies  of  Presbyterians,  for   which 

HE  DEFENDS  THE  SEPARATE  COMMUNION  OF  THE 


U.  P.  Church,  exist  among  themselves.  Ths 
very  supposed  errors  against  which  as  a  needful  protest 
he  maintains  the  necessity  of  a  separate  organization 
and  a  separate  communion  table,  these  identical 
errors,  he  and  others  sanction,  according  to  the  show- 
ing of  their  own  ministerial  brethren,  by  admitting,. 
those  who  hold  them  to  sealing  ordinances,  and  to 
other  privileges  and  honors  of  the  U.  P.  Church  !  Of 
coarse  Dr.  P's.  "  protest  against  error,"  for  example, 
in  the  matters  of  Psalmody  and  close  communion. 
thus  becomes  a  nullity,  a  shadow  without  the  sub- 
stance. 

These  reasonings,  if  we  mistake  not,  clearly  proved 
the  case  as  stated  by  the  author  of  ;1  Church  Fellow- 
ship," to  be  his  own,  viz.,  "that  there  is  no  cause  why 
intercommunion  should  be  forbidden  between  the  par- 
ties" (we  mean  of  course,  such  Christians  as  0.  S. 
Presbyterians  and  U.  P's.),  :i  and  that  therefore  a  con- 
tinuance of  separation  must  involve  the  guilt  of 
schism."*  Whichever  of  the  two  bodies  prevents 
their  union,  is  the  schismatical  party. 

We  might  press  the  argument  still  further,  thus: 
Kecognizing  the  deplorable  fact  of  separate  organiza- 
tions, why  must  "close  communion"  exclude,  all  who 
belong  to  all  other  sects  ?  If  we  were  even  to  grant 
that  the  Covenanters  and  0.  S.  Presbyterians  are  as 
deeply  steeped  in  gross  "  error"  as  the  old  Jewish 
Church,  were  there  not  a  Simeon,  a  Joseph,  an  Aunu 
and  a.  Mary  in  that  corrupted  body  ?  Why  not  "  of 
some  have  compassion,  making  a  difference,"  after  the 

*  Church  Fellowship,  p.  33. 


FALLACIES  DETECTED.  137 

example  of  the  Apostle  Jude  ?     Why  not  distinguish 
the  precious  from  the  vile  ?     Why  not  authorize  U.  V 
sessions  to  receive  such  Old  School  Simeons  and  Anrws 
as  they  might  have  knowledge  of.   beiog  occasionally 
present  at  communion   seasons  ?     Why  so  rigidly  on 
force  the  Testimony,  which  requires  such  devout  per 
•sons  first  {*to  forsake  a  communion  which  is  ineonei 
cut  with  the  (U.  P.")  profession  ?"     This  is  about  the 
same  as  to  say,  iC  we  will  commune  with  you.  although 
you  hold  certain  errors,  provided  you  come  over  to  our 
church.      But    if  you    will   not  join    us.    we    protest 
against  those  errors  (though  common  among  ourselves), 
hy  excluding  vou  from  the  Lord's  table  !"      How  irre- 
eoneilable  is  all  this  with  the  simple  record  of  inspira- 
tion,   i:  If  thou   believest   with   all    thy    heart,    fchau 
may*est.     And  he  baptized  him." 

Another  specimen  of  loose  logic.  The  author  of 
;:  Church  Fellowship."  in  meeting  the  argument  thai 
those  whom  Christ  in  heaven  receives  as  his  dear 
friends  and  brethren,  any  church  on  earth  may  receive 
— ;;if  they  are  in  communion  with  Him.  they  cer- 
tainly may  commune  with  us" — alludes  to  the  case  of 
David,  who  ;'  though  a  member  of  the  church  invisi- 
ble." yet  for  gross  crimes.  ;:  might  justly  be  excluded 
from  visible  communion."  The  mistake  here  consist- 
in  applying  the  conditions  of  a  ca^e  of  obvious  disci- 
pline to  the  question  of  admission  to  ordinary  or  occa- 
sional membership.  No  advocate  of  catholic  commu- 
nion desires  adulterers  and  murderers,  even  though 
they  were  eminent  as  David,  to  be  admitted  to  sealing 


138  FALLACIES    DETECTED. 

ordinances  I  But  how  does  it  thence  follow  that  godly 
Simeons  and  Annas  of  other  denominations,  however 
pure  in  morals,  must  be  excluded  ? 

Dr.  P.  admits  "  that  there  will  always  exist  some 
diverbity  of opinion  among  church  members.  It  was 
so,  he  says,  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles."  In  other 
places  we  have  formerly  shown  that  he  demands 
minute  uniformity  and  agreement  in  all  revealed  truth, 
in  order  to  communion  ;  and  one  chief  reason  is,  that 
it  is  not  possible  to  decide  which  are  essential,  and 
which  non-essential  doctrines.  Only  "  babes"  are  ex- 
cepted from  this  general  statement.* 

He  freely  admits  that  "there  are  certain  great  doc- 
trines of  Christianity  *  *  *  which  are  relatively 
of  greater  importance  than  others."  By  these  he'  no 
doubt  means  ''those  few  leading  fundamental  doctrine* 
of  the  Bible,"  which  he  says  formed  "the  primitive 
creed  of  the  church."  But  in  order  to  show  that  "a 
credible  profession  of  these]  fundamental  doctrines"  is 
not  sufficient  to  give  a  professed  believer  a  right  to 
communion  at  the  present  day,  he  inquires — "Who 
will  presume  to  determine  precisely  what  doctrines  in 
the  Bible  are  essential  to  salvation,  or  what  amount  of 

*  In  the  Institutes,  b.  4,  chap.  1,  sec.  12,  Calvin  draws  the  true  line  of  dis- 
tinction among  doctrines,  thus  :  ':  All  the  articles  of  true  doctrine  are  not  of 
the  same  description.  Some  are  so  necessary  to  bo  known,  that  they  ought 
to  be  universally  received  as  fixed  and  indubitable  principle?,  as  the  peculiar 
maxims  of  religion.  There  are  others,  which  are  controverted  among  the 
churches,  yet  without  destroying  the  "unity  of  the  faith.''' 

Calvin  had  no  difficulty  in  deciding  what  doctrines  were  essential  to  the 
unity  of  faith  and  what  doctrines  "  dostroyed"  it.  For  he  immediately  adds : 
"  A  diversity  of  opinion  respecting  these  non-e$s«nfiaf  points  ought  not  to  be 
a  cause  of  discord  among  Christians.*'    . 


FALLACIES  DETECTED.  139 

error  may  consist  with  the  reality  of  the  Christian  char- 
acter V  But  to  this  as  a  question  of  the  right  to  com- 
munion, Pr.  P.  himself  has  given  the  true  answer,  viz., 
'•the  brief  and  simple  creed  of  primitive  Christianity/ ' 
;;  those  few  leading  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible" 
Have  you  any  serious  difficulty  in  determining  precisely 
what  they  were  I  Surely  not ;  otherwise  you  would 
not  have  said  they  were  "leading  and  fundamental"' — 
for  how  could  you  know  that,  if  you  could  not  distin 
guish  them  if*  On  the  platform  of  this  "primitive 
creed."  admit  Covenanters  and  0.  S.  Presbyterians  to 
occasional  communion — and  then  you  need  not  give 
yourself  or  anybody,  else  the  least  trouble  to  inquire 
what  amount  of  error  may  consist  with  the  reality  of 
the  Christian  character  of  such  communicants.  They 
comply  with  the  apostolic  requisitions,  and  that  should 
satisfy  you  i-.ud  every  body  else.  As  to  your  fears  that, 
you  would  thus  ?/ connive  at  the  rejection  of  certain 
other  truths  in  the  word  of  God" —  we  suppose  that 
the  Apostles  understood  that  matter  at  least  as  well  as 
any  of  us  moderns.  If  they  found  no  such  difficulty 
in  the  application  of  their  "brief  and  simple  creed." 
we' may  throw  our  fears  to  the  winds. 

•  *  Since  the'feregoing  was  written,  Dr.  .P.  has  published  over  his  own  tig- 
eaturo  .the  following  :  Speaking  of  the  0.  S.  and  U.  P.  Churches,  he  says— 
■'•'  W?  are  free  to'admit  that  these  '  two  bodies'  hold,  substantially  the  gamp 
views  in  relation  to  the  great  doctrines  of  Christianity."  Cut  bow  could  h° 
.&ay  this,  if  he  "  could  not  presume  to  determine'-'  what  these  "  great  doc- 
trines of  Christianity"  are?  And  if  he  can  settle  this  point  go  easily,  why 
should  hejnake  any  difficulty  on  the  question  of  essentials  and  nun-csscntials, 
jn"deciding  the  right  of  0.  S.  Presbytorians  to  the  communion?  Surely 
'■'  the  great  doctrines  of  Christianity"  aro  "  the  essentials " —  and  pr.  P.  urns! 
know  what  {Ijey  are,  if  hi*  own  statement  is  a  correct  one. 

ia  ' 


140  MORE   FALLACIES. 


CHAPTER    XI. 

MORE   FALLACIES.— A    REME'DY  FOR  DIVISIOX. 

/TfJlIE  author  of  -;  Church  Fellowship"  teaches  that 
*=u  it  is  just  as  inconsistent  with  the  nature  and 
design  of  the  Christian  church  that  divisions  should 
exist  among  her  members,  as  that  the  members  of  the 
human  body  should  be  divided  one  from  another. 
••Vvhere  these  divisions  exist." — he  adds,  "there 
must  be  something  wrong  —  they  origiuato  in  wnit 
sinful  came.3'  Of  course  he  can  not  mean  that  the 
body  to  which  he  belongs  stands  separated  from  other 
Presbyterian  churches  for  "a  sinful  cause" — for  that 
would  be  to  confess  himself  and  his  brethren  guilty  of 
schism  —  for  "they  have  nu  right  to  exist."  It  is 
self-evident  that  Christ  has  not  given  the  U.  P.  Church 
aright  to  exist  ••for  a  sinful  cause!"  His  meaning 
obviously  is  this :  We  United  Presbyterians  have  a 
right  to  separate  existence ;  but  other  Presbyterian 
churches  have  no  such  right,  because  they  "originated 
in  something  wrong" — "some  sinful  cause."  But  if 
the  Head  of  the  Church  has  not  given  these  other 
Presbyterian  bodies  "a  right  to  exist,"  what  right  can 
they  possibly  have  to  enforce  "close  communion  ?V  Dr. 
P.  tells  us.  moreover,  that  "to  assemble  at  the  commu- 
nion table  all  the  difftrtnt  portions  of  the  Christian 
church/'  "would  convert  her  into  a  liabe!  '"''      But  if 

*  Ch,  iVU.r  y.  U. 


MORE   FALLACIES.  141 

this  were  ever  so  true  of  "ALL  the  different  churches." 
is  it  a  good  reason  for  excluding  the  most  exemplary 
and  excellent  of  the  Covenanter  and  0.  S.  Churches  ? 
Or  does  Dr.  P.  really  think  that  by  authorizing  the 
members  of  the  U.  P.  Church  to  sit  down  at  the  tabic 
of  the  Lord  with  those  of  other  denominations  which 
he  calls  i;sister  churches,"  '-toward  whom  he  expresses 
feelings  of  the  kindest  fraternal  regard,  and  wishesthem 
abundant  success  in  all  their  works  of  faith  and  labors 
of  love" — does  he  really  think  "the  church  would  be 
thus  converted  into  a  Babel  ?"  These  are  the  really 
practical  questions.  The  organic  union  of  all  real 
Presbyterians  is  what  we  desire  —  a  consummation 
devoutly  to  be  wished  —  and  until  we  can  reach  some 
practical  conclusion  on  this  point,  we  may  safely  post- 
pone the  question  of  "  assembling  at  the  communion 
table  all  the  different  portions  of  the  Christian  church." 
To  mingle  in  the  discussion  of  the  only  really  practical 
topics,  those  which  are  merely  theoretical,  has  too  much 
the  air  of  special  pleading.  ;:One  thing  at  a  time"- — 
is  a  sound  practical  maxim.  When  Presbyterians  of 
the  different  tribes  have  healed  their  own  "sinful" 
divisions,  they  can  consistently  inquire  into  the  ques- 
tion of  communing  with  all  other  sects.  Then  will  bt- 
the  suitable  occasion  to  discuss  the  point,  whether  by 
admitting  other  bodies  than  Presbyterians  and  Cab 
vinists  to  our  fellowship,  we  will  "convert  the  church 
into  a  Babel." 

The  remedy  for  these  "sinful"  divisions,  not  obscure- 
ly indicated  by  Dr.  P.,  is  that  all  the  other  Christian 


142  MORE   FALLACIES. 

denominations  should  break  up,  renounce  their  ,; er- 
rors," and  join  the  U.  P's.  Dr.  D.  Kerr,  however,  sug- 
gests the  practice  of  "close  communion"  in  all  the 
different  sects,  as  a  likely  method  of  healing  these 
breaches.  He  says  the  theory  of  catholic  communion 
"  deplorably  tends  to  reconcile  the  church  to  her  pres- 
ent unnatural  and  sinful  state,  and  so  to  perpetuate 
division."*  "Close  communion,"  on  the  other  hand,  if 
universally  practiced,  he  thinks  would  "exhibit  schism 
in  its  true  light" — "make  more  clear  and  palpable  the 
deformity  and  disabilities  it  has  brought  upon  the 
church." 

But  suppose  the  other  evangelical  denominations 
should  each  for  itself  adopt  the  close  communion  theory 
as  taught  in  the  V.  P.  Church  ?  Of  course  it  would 
be  done  conscientiously;  and  the  result  follows,  viz.. 
that  the  conscientious  adoption  of  exclusive  commu- 
nion would  be  the  most  likely  method  to  convince 
each  of  the  sects  that  they  were  wrong — -living  in  a 
sinful  schismatical  separation  from  other  Christians. 
Is  this  a  very  probable  result '(  There  is  doubtless 
such  a  thing  as  an  individual  plunging  so  deeply  into 
a  course  of  profligacy,  that  conscience  ig  suddenly 
startled  from  its  slumbers,  and  he  becomes  a  reformed 
man.  Whether  Dr.  K's.  remedy  for  schism  is  expected 
to  operate  on  some  such  principle,  we  cannot  say.  The 
idea  of  promoting  cordial  harmony  of  faith,  feeling  and 
practice  among  brethren  of  different  professions,  by 
building  the  walls  of  separation  so  high,  as  to  amount 
to  total  exclusion  from  sealing  ordinances,   seems  to 

*?7.  P.  Quarterly,  1860,  p.  147. 


MORE    FALLACIES.  143 

our  mind  rather  problematical.  Dr.  K.  himself,  hav- 
ing had  long  experience  of  this  method  of  promoting 
union,  can  possibly  speak  of  its  results  from  actual 
trial;  But  he  poorly  exhibits  the  good  fruits  of  his 
own  theory. 

Again  :  We  are  not  to  suppose  that  this  good  brother 
means  to  admit  that  he  has  been  living  in  "the  enor- 
mous sin  of  schism."  and  therefore  needs,  as  he  says, 
"  to  realize  it,  that  it  may  be  repented  of."  Of  course 
not.  The  U.  P.  Church  is  not  sehismatical,  by  cny 
means !  It  follows,  therefore,  that  hi*  remedy  for 
schism  is  intended  only  for  the  other  Christian  denom- 
inations. They  are  the  schismatics,  and  Dr.  K's. 
remedy  of  "'close  communion"  is  recommended  to  heni 
their  "sinful"  propenrities  to  division  ;  or  to  right  the 
great  -wrong"  in  which  they  have  had  their seliismat- 
ical  origin. 

It  all  then  comes  to  this  —  that  if  these  several  sects 
will  adopt  this  one  of  the  U.  P.  '-principles/'  that  will 
be  one  step  out  of  schism  and  toward  scriptural  union. 
And  if  they  will  only  be  wise  and  conscientious  enough 
to  adopt  the  remainder  of  the  U.  P.  Confession  and 
Testimony  and  unite  with  u.<}  "the  enormous  sin  of 
ichism"  will  cease.  Of  course  this  will  indicate  that 
if  has  boen  "repented  of"  before  it  was  forsaken.  Dr. 
K.  does  not  in  so  many  terms  preach  this  gospel,  these 
glad  tidings  of  peace  and  fraternity;  but  we  believe 
we  have  correctly  stated  the  substance  of  his  remedy 
for  schism.  It  appears  to  harmonize  very  well  with 
that  of  the  author  of  "Church  Fellowship  :"  Cease  to 
13* 


144  A.   REMEDY   FOP.    MVJSTON, 

dill'er  from  us  ;  unite  with  our  body  :  then  schism  will 
come  to  an  end.  Or  as  Dr.  P.  aptly  expresses  it :  "Let 
error'* — (of  course  lie  means  other  peopie\  errors)  "let 
error,  which,  is  the  cause  of  division,  be  removed'' — 
(/.  e.  by  a  full  and  formal  agreement  with  us  U.  Vs.  > 
•and  then,  as  the  natural  result,  division  will  cease." 
Nothing  could  be  more  logical  and  conclusive.  Let  all 
professing  Christians  become  "United  Presbyterians/' 
and  there  will  be  no  schism  —  but  a  church,  that  is  one 
an  I  indivisible.* 

How  strongly  in  contrast  with  all  this,  is  the  remedy 
for  divisions  recommended  by  Dr.  3iason.  the  "prince 
of  American  preachers  :**  "  Let  us  show  our  fellow 
Christians  that  vvo  embrace  them  in  the  bowels  of  Jcsu« 
Christ  —  that  we  do  not  consider  k  the  children's  bread' 
on  their  tables  as  'cast  to  the  dogs.'  Let  us  show 
it  not  merely  by  profession,  but  by  facts  — let  us  eat  of 
their  bread  when  they  invite  ns  ;  and  welcome  them  in 
turn,  to  eat  of  our  own.  One  year  of  love  will  do  more 
toward  setting  us  mutuallv  tlsht  when  we  are  wron-j. 
than  a.  millennium  of  wrangling" — and  he  mighl  haw 
added,  --than  n  thousand  years  of  exclusive,  anti-social 
worship." 

Is  there  then  xo  rniMEnv  Tor  these  " enormous  sins 
of  schism?"  is  there  no  common  ground,  on  which 
all  Calvinistic  Presbyterians  at  least,  may  unite  in  one 
body,  and  from  which  they  may  go  forth   in  unbroken 

-Tlii'iv  is  uotasect  on  earth,  however  small,  tfuti  would  disapprove  of 
Dr.  Prs.  panacea  for  curing  pchfoln.  They  aH  oiVt-r  similar  accommodating 
Bsrrae,  viz..  ••  AH  yen  people  adopt  <»iv  standards  «itd  join  us,  and  awa}  w  iii. 
your  foolish  and  wicked  divisions,  the  enormous  Bias  of  schism  ! "  The  vari- 
ety, hewrver,  might  occasion  ?omo  embafrasenient  vh^r?  to  fix  the  choice. 


k    REMEDY   FOR    1HYTSTOK.  14-") 

phalanx  to  meet  and  conquer  the  foes  of  our  eommon 
Christianity  !  M'ftst  we  forever  Waste  our  strength  and 
resources  in  these  hateful  divisions,  instead  of  combin- 
ing all  our  energies  in  the  extension  of  the  Hetleemer'-s 
kingdom  —  in  spreading  the  triumphs  of  the  Gross  to 
the  remotest  limits  of  the  habitable  world  '(  Such  a 
eninmon  ground,  we  think,  is  embraced  in  the  follow- 
ing truths  and  principles.- 

I.  "We  may  safely  say  thete  is  not  a  perfectly pure 
church  on  the  face  of  the  earth."  ••In  the  present 
state  of  imperfcetion.  there  will  always  exist  some  diver- 
sity of  opinion  among  the  members  of  the  church." 
"They  (true  Christians) all  think  as  Christ  thinks  on 
the  gr-f-ai '  foamhii  ion-truth*  of  the  gospel."   (1) 

II.  ;:Were  it  possible  to  get  all  true  Christians 
throughout  the  whole  world  assembled  into  one  church. 
while  none  others  were  admitted,  there  would  probably 
be  very  little  jarring  between  them,  probably  none  in 
the  (ji'cat  truth*  and  t/i'fic*  of  the  gospel."  "  It  is 
ehimerical  to  expect  union  on  the  principle  of  agree- 
ment in.  rvfcii/tliiinj.  and  the  framing  of  a  basis  of  union 
on  that  principle  will  be  found  to  be  lost  labor."   (2) 

LIT.      "The  only   basis  on   which  'catholic   commu- 
nion' can  exist,  if  it  be  really  what  it  should  be.  is    (lie 
communion  of  saints  by  profession.'  '       "The  apostolic 
creed  of  primitive  Christianity  embraced  a  few  of  the 
leading  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible."   (3) 
IV.     ••That  a  temporary,  or  what  is  called  •  occasion- 
al; Dr.  MDill  in  tli .  "Overture,"  and  Or.  Presaly. 
(2)  Dr.  M'Dill  fci  both  extract's  from  ;i  Overture." 
Li..  M'Liil  and  PrcssJy. 


146  A    REMEDY   F0T1   DIVISION. 

al  communion,'  with  sister  churches,  may  lawfully  in 
some  instances  take  place,  is  what  no  man  of  under- 
standing, who  is  not  much  pinched  to  support  some 
favorite  and   false  hypothesis,  will   deny;  * 

if  otherwise  proper  care  be  taken  to  guard  against  an 
unhallowed  communion."  "We  never  can  and  never 
will  embrace  the  principle  that  all  the  Protestant 
churches,  except  oar  own  pctrii/,  -ire  unfit  for  Christian 
or  holy  communion.''   (4) 

V .  "The  Bible  is  their  (Associate  Reformed  )  Testi- 
mony. They  are  afraid  of  publishing  top  many  Tes- 
monies —  because  they  may  tend  to  turn  away  our  at 
tention  from  Holy  Scripture  to  hamon  corn  positions/' 
*  They  (Associate  Reformed)  offer  no  other  Testimony 
to  tkeir  churches  than  the  Bible,  as  explained  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith."   (  5  ) 

VI.  ';  We  are  far  from  disapproving 'of  ;  House's 
Version,'  commonly  called  the  old  Psalms."  -  We  are 
extremely  sorry  to  have  observed  a  growing  disrelish 
in  some  churches  for  the  Psalms  of  David  and  other 
songs i  of  Scripture."  -  We  do  not  mean  to  say  that 
hymns  of  human  composition  may  not.  be  lawfully  used 
in  any  case  whatever/'  (6) 

VII.  -"The  Church  of  Christ  in  this  country  is 
miserably  divided.  The  had  consequences  are  many 
and  great  —  inability  to  support  Ordinances,  pr  even 
an    appearance  of  a    Christian   church;    a    relaxation 

(4)  Dr.  M'Oill  in   tin-  ••  Overture.'1 
{i>)  Dr.  M'D.  in  the  same. 

-  The  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Chajch/aiuJ  the  Overture 
by  Ma?on,  Annan  and  Smith. 


A    REMEDY    EOF.   DIVISION.  147 

of  discipline;  a  contempt  of  the  ministry-,  and  the; 
rapid  progress  of  ignorance,  infidelity  and  vice.  These 
are  heart -piercing  evils;  and  might  in  part  be,  pre- 
vented by  the  united  exertions  of  the  friends  of  religion 
and  virtue."  (7) 

VIII.  The  diversity  of  sentiment  among  the  differ- 
ent Calvinistic  denominations  is  not  greater  than  the 
differences  among  their  own  individual  membership. 
And  there  is  just  the  same  reason  why  these  different 
churches  should  excommunicate  many  of  the  best  of 
their  own  members,  as  that  they  should  refuse  inter- 
communion in  their  organic  character.  "Not  one-half 
of  the  members  of  the  U.  P.  Church  believe  every  part 
of  the  creed  which  it  professes."  "Is  it  not  proper  to 
make  terms  of  communion  as  few.  comprehensive,  clear 
and  scriptural  as  possible?"  (S) 

IX.  "The  principle  of  the  church's  unity  occupies 
a  conspicous  place  in  the  doctrinal  part"  (viz.,  of 
■•the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians").  -This  admitted,  the 
doctrine  of  catholic  communion  seemed  to  be  an  irre- 
sistible consequence."  "That  unity  which  marked  the 
primitive  church,  when  the  followers  of  Christ  all  went 
under  one  name,  consisted  in  their  agreement  in  fun- 
damentals." (9) 

Here  then  is  A  platform  of  principles  on  which 
all  Christians,  who  adopt   the  Westminster  Confession 

-  A, 

of  Faith,  can  harmonize.     We  are  not  acquainted  with 

(7)  "The  Ruling  Elder,"  by  Rev.  R.  Annan,  an  Associate  Reformed  min- 
ister. 

(8)  Rev.  Mr.  M'C'une  and  Annan's  "Ruling  Elder."  ' 

(9)  Rev.  Dr.  Prossly's  Letter  to  Dr.  Mason,  and    United  Presbyterian  for 
July, 1851. 


14S  \     |!EMET>Y    FOE    DIVISION. 

a  solitary  Old  School  Presbyterian  who  would  object 
to  anything  contained  in  these  articles.     Onr  brethren 

in  their  "Testimony"  profess  to  he  deeply  impressed 
with  -;the  solemn  responsibilities  of  their  present  state 
of  separation  from  other  Presbyterian  churches."  They 
also  :- deplore  the  divisions  that  exist  in  the  church  of 
Christ,  and  especially  among  those  who  have  the  same 
Confession  of  Faith."  These  divisions  they  denounce 
"as  highly  dishonoring  to  Christ,  tending  to  harden 
die  enemies  of  truth  in  their  opposition  to  it  —  to 
promote  improper  feelings  among  brethren  —  to  coun- 
teract the  exercise  of  discipline,  and  to  retard  the  grand 
and  avowed  design  of  Christianity."  All  this,  and 
more,  is  true  of  the  detestable  antipathies  which  the 
lather  of  evil  has  so  long  contrived  to  kindle  and  keep 
alive  among  sound  Calvinistic  Presbyterians,  the  friends 
and  followers  of  a  common  Lord.  How  long  shall 
those  who  love  and  honor  the  same  Saviour  thus  work 
into  the  hands  of  the  powers  of  darkness  ;  and  by  their 
foolish  and  hurtful  separations  contribute  to  swell  the 
fearful  tide  of  ruined  souls  as  it  rolls  onward  to  the  pit 
of  destruction  v    "  0  Lord,  how  long  !" 


• 


APPENDIX. 


Ix  Chapter  111.  of  this  volume,  some  facts  are 
stated  in  relation  to  the  views  of  the  Hev.  Robert 
Anxax,  our  honored  father,  which  will  probably  sur- 
prise certain  of  our  U.  P.  brethren  —  especially  those 
of  them,  who.  like  Dr.  P.,  have  published  the  author  of 
this  work  as  ''a  slanderer  of  his  own  father" — "guilty 
of  atrocious  slander.  &p."  On  the  testimony  of  the 
facts  as  there  stated,  we  are  very  willing  to  abide  the 
candid  judgment  of  all  good  men  in  regard  to  that 
point.  It  must  be  very  evident  that  Mr.  Anxax  was 
neither  a  psalm-singer  nor  a  close-communidriist  of  a 
certain  hard,  cast-iron  type.  He  had  his  preferences — 
but  they  were  those  of  a  mind  which,  as  Dr.  I*,  ex- 
presses it,  ••  could  think  rationally  on   these  subjects.'' 

A  few  remarks  may  be  proper  in  this  connection,  in 
regard  to  t\\o,- reception  which  "the  A'Andication  of  the 
Letters  on  Psalmody",  has  met  from  the  several  critics. 
who  claim  that  in  singing  Rouse  "they  sing  the  inspired 
word  of  God."  The  remarkable  acerbity  in  some  of 
these  judgments  proves  that  they  have  been  influenced 
more  by  temper  than  any  thing  i  Jse.  The  Banner  of 
the  Covenant  kindlv  savs.  that  "the  book  is  written  in 
a  Christian  spirit."  but  Dr.  Sproull(01d  £idc  Covenan- 
ter) compares  it  in  part  "to  the  writings  of  Renan  and 
Colcnso" —  who  are  practical  infidels  !  And  yet  another 
very  recently,  in  the  columns  of  the  United  Presbyterian, 
judges  that  '•much  learning"  or  something  else  has 
made   the   author   mad '     \  similar  compliment    was 


150  APPENDIX. 

paid  to  the  Apostle  Paul  on  one  occasion.  Astrono- 
mers tell  us  of  certain  "disturbing  forces,"  which 
often  spoil  their  most  accurate  calculations.  These 
brethren,  some  of  them  at  least,  seem  to  have  been 
greatly  disturbed  by  something!  Of  course  we  must 
make  due  allowance  for  these  influences; 

The  Evangelical  Repository,  a  magazine  edited  by 
Drs.  Cooper  and  Barr,  of  Philadelphia,  notices  the 
"Vindication"  in  as  fair  and  candid  a  spirit  as  could 
perhaps  be  expected  from  our  U.  P.  brethren.  Drs. 
Barr  and  Cooper  concede  that  ';  the  author  shows  a  very 
intimate  acquaintance  with  the  subject  in  controversy. " 
Very  well !  Then  of  course  Dr.  P.  misrepresents  the 
author,  when  he  says  that  he  chiefly  discusses  "  the  ex- 
clusive use  of  Rouse," — "and  represents  the  great 
matter  in  dispute  to  be  ' what  version  shall ■; we  use."' 
Dr.  P.  can  settle  it  with  Drs.  Cooper  and  Barr. 

Again:  The  Repository  says  further,  "that  the 
author  of  the  'Vindication'  has  evinced  no  little  ability 
and  acuteness  in  vindicating  his  'Letters  on  Psalinodv' 
and  the  principles  stated  in  those  Letters."  "He  evin^ 
res  more  than  ordinary  skill  in  polemic  tactics."  Very 
well,  again.  Dr.  P.,  however,  can  think  of  no  more  ap- 
propriate term  for  our  "ability,  acuteness,  and  polemic 
skill,"  than  "  the  hallucination*  of  the  author  of  the 
Vindication  !"  According  to  tlie  Repository,  the  Iwttu- 
cination  is  all  on  the  Doctor's  side. 

Once  more.  The  ';  most  unkindest  cut  of  all"  is  this : 
Drs.  Cooper  and  Barr  tell  their  readers,  '•that  in  some 
instances  the  "Vindication"  seems  pretty  effectually  to 
succeed  in  getting  Dr.  P.  in  what  seems  to  be  A  tight 
'  place  !"  This  ma}-  perhaps  satisfactorily  account  for 
the  lac"  that  Dr.  P.,  as  he  himself  informs  us,  ';had 
resolved  to  take  no  notice  of  the  Vindication."  This 
prudent  resolve,  however,  he  was  at  length  brought  to 
reconsider,  the  motive'  therefor  being  as  follows  :  Dr. 
Hodge,  editor  of  the  fiiblical  ftepertpry,  had  so  far 


APPENDIX.  151 

fallen  under  Mr.  A's.  hallucination  as  to  assert  in  a 
notice  of  the  book  that  -'Mr.  Annan's  arguments  had 
not  been,  and  could  not  be  refuted/'  This  statement 
from  the  pen  of  the  venerable  editor  of  the  Repertory 
seems  to  have  greatly  disturbed  Dr.  P.  But  instead 
of  taking  up  the  real  questions,  as  stated  in  the  book, 
and  pointing  out  the  fallacy  of  the  reasoning,  he  labors 
through  a  long  argumentation  in  trying  to  make  the 
impression  that  Mr.  A's  arguments  were  "chiefly  di- 
rected against  the  exclusive  use  of  Rouse's  paraphrase  I" 
But  this  is  proved  incorrect  by  the  title  of  the  "Letters 
on  Psalmody,"  by  the  "propositions"  stated  for  dis- 
cussion, and  by  the  whole  course  and  tenor  of  the  vol- 
ume. Our  arguments  were  not  directed  against  "the 
exclusive  use"  of  Rouse  or  any  other  versification,  but 
against  " Rouse  as  an  inspired  system  of  Psalmody ;"  as 
also  against  "the  exclusive  use"  of  the  150  Psalms. 
These  facts  Dr.  P.  might  have  found  plainly  stated  in 
the  "  Vindication."  And  it  seems  strange  that  he  should 
have  been  ignorant  of  them,  if  he  had  read  the  book 
he  professes  to  criticise.  Yet  strange  to  tell,  over  his 
own  signature  he  ventures,  in  a  variety  of  forms,  to 
misstate  and  caricature  the  argument  of  the  Letters  and 
Vindication  as  against  "the  exclusive  use  of  Rouse  !" 
Such  spasmodic  struggles  as  these  indicate  very  clearly 
the  existence  of  what  Drs.  Cooper  and  Barr  call  "the 
tight  places"  in  Dr.  P's.  controversial  experience. 

Such  being  the  evasive  method  which  Dr.  P.  has 
chosen  to  follow,  it  becomes  altogether  needless  to 
pursue  him  through  all  the  windings  of  his  course.  He 
still  calls  Rouse's  paraphrase  "a  version,"  "a  poetic 
translation" — but  he  appears  to  have  comedown  some- 
what from  the  lofty  terms  of  his  book  "on  Psalmody." 
He  does  not  now  say,  "a  true  and  literal  version,"  as 
he  used  to  do  —  nor  affirm  that  "as  a  true  and  literal 
translation  of  the  original,  it  (Rouse)  is  decidedly  supe- 
14 


152  APPENDIX. 

rior  to  any  other  in  the  English  language  i" —  and  of 
course  superior  to  our  prose  version,  more  true,  more 
literal!  Yet  he  docs  say,  ""We  read  the  word  of  God 
in  the  prose  translation,  and  we  sing  the  songs  of  inspi- 
ration (i.  e.  the  word  of  God)  in  our  poetical  version." 
Of  course  he  must  still  believe  that  "Rouse's  para- 
phrase,1' or  "  Rouse's  Psalms,"  as  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland  calls  it,  is  an  inspired  para- 
phrase !  13ut  he  does  not  attempt  to  prove  that  any 
person  of  sense  e^er  called  our  "  prose j  translation  of 
the  Bible"  a  paraphrase. 

Referring  to  the  "Letters  on  Psalmody"  and  "Vin- 
dication" for  the  conclusive  evidence  which  disproves 
his  strong  assertions,  it  must  suffice  to  exhibit  a  few 
specimens  of  Dr.  P's.  latest  demonstrations  of  logical 
skill. 

1.  He  argues  that  because  our  0.  S.  supreme  judica- 
tory have  decided  that  they  are  "far  from  disapprov- 
ing" of  Rouse's  Psalms — therefore,  they  must  have 
approved  of  their  errors;  such  for  example  as  "that 
man  bath  perfect  blessedness" — which  implies  of  course 
perfect  holiness — for  only  the  sinless  are  "perfectly 
messed."  Dr.  P.,  however,  hoots  at  the  idea  of  there 
being  any  error  at  all  in  the  line  just  quoted  from 
Ps.  1 .  Yet  in  the  new  version  adopted  by  the  U.  P. 
General  Assembly,  his  own  church  have  changed  it 
into.  "How  blest  the  man" — which  is  Dr.  Watt's  ver- 
sification almost  verbally  ;  and  avoids  the  error  of  "sin- 
less perfection." 

2.  In  his  second  number  Dr.  P.  remarks — "  Whether 
the  author  of  the  Vindication  is  willing  to  admit  that 
we  have  divine  authority  for  the  use  of  the  Psalms  *  * 
is  somewhat  doubtful "  "Somewhat  doubtful  /"  Yet  Dr. 
P.  had.  in  his  hands  the  book  which  on  p.  61  speaks  a 
follows :  "  W'e  have  Divine  appointment  for  the  use  of 
the  Psalms  in  praise  to  God.      The    author  of  cths 


APPENDIX,  IfiS 

Vindication'  never  had  the  least  doubt  on  that  subject." 
Similar  statements  are  found  on  p.  29.  and  elsewhere— 
and  such  a  denial  of  the  "use  of  the  Psalms"  is  pro- 
nounced by  the  author  both  "silly  and  wicked."  Is 
there  anything  doubtful  about  these  statements  ? 

But  perhaps  the  strangest  of  these  later  errors  which 
Dr.  P.  has  perr'tted  himself  to  utter,  is  the  following  : 

3.  To  prove  that  the  "Vindication"  teaches  that  we 
"have  no  divine  warrant  to  use  them"  (the  Psalms),  he 
quotes  the  following:  "The  principle  which  assumes  a 
divine  warrant  for  singing  a  literal  version  of  the  ivJwle 
book  of  l^salms,  we  regard  as  both  false  and  injurious 
to  the  best  interests  ">f  the  church  under  her  present 
dispensation."  The  obvious  meaning  intended  by  the 
author  of  the  "Vindication"  may  be  shown  in  a  few 
particulars  : 

(1.)  Dr.  P.  himself  practically  admits  the  truth  of 
the  statement,  "that  we  have  no  divine  appointment  for 
a  literal  version  of  the  whole  book  of  Psalms/'  For  he 
sings  no  "literal  version,"  but  a  mixed  paraphrase, 
with  five  hundred  lines  and  parts  of  lines  of  human 
amendments  of  the  thoughts  of  the  inspired  writers. 
This  fact  entirely  explodes  the  idea  of  a  "literal  ver- 
sion"— and  convicts  him.  on  his  own  theory,  of  habitu- 
ally violating  "divine  appointment."  as  he  understands 
it. " 

(2.)  Dr.  P.  does  not  sing  "the  whole  book"— for  he 
"lays  aside  as  useless"  nearly  all  the  inspired  titles. 
because  he  says  they  "are  under  the  veil,  and  unintel- 
ligible." Yet  they  are  integral  parts  of  the  Psalms. 
Besides,  he  rejects  Ps.  72  :  20  ;  and  parts  of  Ps.  128  : 
2,  136:15,  &c,  &c,  &c.  Thus  he  attempts  to  im- 
prove upon  the  divine  pattern.  As  regards  the  in- 
spired titles  of  most  of  the  Psalms.  Dr.  Kerr  says, 
"they  were  never  intended  to  be  sung."  Of  course  the 
principle  is  false  which  requires  the  whole  book  to  be 


154  APPENDIX. 

Ming,  and  if  false,  "it  is  of  course"  injurious  --to  the 
interests  of  the  church." 

(3.)  The  ohvious  intention  of  the  "Vindication"  in 
denying  divine  appointment  for  singing  the  whole  hook 
in  a  literal  version,  is  not  to  question  the  divine  war- 
rant to  use  the  Psalms  in  praise,  hut  to  question  the 
expediency  of  using  some  of  tnem  literally.  Dr.  P. 
himself  explains  the  Psalm,  because  he  thinks  it  needs 
it,  and  then  he  allows  the  people  to  sing  it.  lie  ex- 
plains in  very  plain  prose.  Tie  explain  some  of  th 
Psalms  in  very  good  poetry.  The  author  of  the  "  Vin- 
dication" gives  this  as  in  part  his  meaning  in  the  very 
same  section  from  which  Dr.  P.  extracts  the  above 
statement,  which  he  thinks  so  very  objectionable. 
Whether  Dr.  P.  of  ourself  is  the  greater  sinner,  we 
submit  to  common  sense. 


A  DEFENCE 


u€kst  €mmnvku  CesteV 


Against  the  Stri&ures  and  Objections  of  Drs. 
Pressly  and  Sproull. 


B  T 


WILLIAM    ANNAN. 


Prove  all  things. — Paul. 


R.  S.  DaTls  &  Co.,  No.  193  Liberty  Street;  Presbyterian  Book  Rooms,  92 Third  Avenue, 

Pittsburgh. 


■W.  S.  Haren  4s  Co.,  Printen,  Pittrturgh, 


CONTEN  T  S. 


Page. 

Preface,  _______  4 

Chapter  I. 

The  state  of  the  question.  Extreme  view  of  terms 
of  Communion  taught  in  "  Church  Fellow- 
ship," disavowed  by  U.  P.  Ministers — but  not 
the  main  question  to  be  discussed,     -    -    -    -'.'  7 

Chapter  II. 

The  Reviewer  substitutes  a  side  issue  in  the  room 
of  the  real  question  discussed  in  "  Close  Com- 
munion Tested."  The  main  question  fairly- 
stated — the  nature  and  the  amount  of  the 
truth  to  be  received  as  conditions  of  com- 
munion. Irrelevant  topics  introduced  by 
Dr.  P., 11 

Chapter  III. 

The  Reviewer  plays  fast  and  loose.  Maintains  and 
abandons  his  principles  at  pleasure.  Calls 
hard  names — "  thou  hypocrite,"  &c  ,     -    -  16 

Chapter  IV. 

The  doctrine  taught  by  "  The  Fathers."  Calvin's 
view.  Knox,  Welsh,  Moncrief,  Renwick. 
Doctrine  taught  in  "The  Overture."  Ex- 
amination of  a  certain  Act  of  A.  R.  Synod. 
Views  and  practice  of  u  Father  Annan."  Dr.  • 
P.'s  charge  that  this  father  disregarded  his  or- 
dination vows,  -  -  -  22 

Chapter  V. 
More  about  "  The  Fathers."  They  sanction  the 
use  of  "human  compositions  "  Their  views 
of  stated  fellowship.  Act  of  the  Church  of 
Scotland  in  1711.  Dr.  P.'s  defence  of  "Catholic 
Communion'r  in  1818,  in  letter  to  Dr.  Mason,  32 


Chapter  VI. 

The  Associate  "fathers."  Dr.  P.'s  theory  im- 
practicable— evaded  by  himself.  Direct  argu- 
ment. Example  of  our  Lord  at  the  first  sup- 
per. Disciples  had  not  received  Christian 
baptism,  &c,         ---__-  39 

Chapter  VII. 

Argument  from  Apostolic  Example.  Peter  Bap- 
tizing Cornelius.  Cases  of  the  Eunuch,  the 
Philippian  Jailor,  &c,         -  50 

Chapter  VIII. 

Doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.  Fatal  ad- 
mission of  the  "  U.  P.  Quarterly  "  when  Dr. 
P.  was  one  of  the  editors.  Teaching  of  Hether- 
ington,  the  historian  of  the  Scottish  Church,  60 

Chapter  IX. 

Practical  Excommunication  of  all  churches  who 
hold  Catholic  Communion.  Great  Inconsisten- 
cies in  the  U.  P.  Body,         -  67 

Chapter  X. 

Examination   of  Dr.  P.'s  Proof  Texts.  Amos  3: 

3;  Komans  16 :  17,  &c,  -  70 

Chapter  XI. 

The  Primitive  Creed.     A  Credible  Profession.     A 

great  objection,  &c,         -  75 

Chapter  XII. 
Dr.  SproulPs  objections, 84 


PREFACE. 


In  preparing  this  Defence,  the  writer  has  aimed  to  cor- 
rect the  chief  misstatements  and  fairly  meet  all  the  objections 
to  our  views  made  by  Dr.  Pressly.  How  successful  he  has 
been  in  this,  he  leaves  others  to  decide. 

"We  confess,  however,  to  great  surprise  at  one  feature  of 
the  Dr.'s  review — that  in  which  he  seems  to  complain  of  the 
publication  of  our  former  volume  on  Communion.  His 
book  on  "  Church  Fellowship,"  he  says,  "uttered  not 
an  unkind  word  in  relation  to  the  views  of  any  particular 
branch  of  the  church."  But  this  is  not  quite  correct.  For 
although  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  not  named,  her  doc- 
trine of  Communion  is  very  distinctly  assailed.  And  what 
is  more,  her  doctrine  is  misrepresented  as  "  uniting  all 
parties  of  profess ed  Christians  in  the  fullest  Communion." 
See  Ch.  Fell.,  p.  57.  This  is  said  to  be  "  Catholic  Com- 
munion." But  this  is  a  very  gross  misstatement — for  "all 
parties  of  professed  Christians,"  of  course  include  Unita- 
rians, Universalists,  &c!  Yet  Dr.  P.  claims  that  he  is  not 
the  assailant,  "  utters  no  unkind  word!" 

More  than  this  :  If  Dr.  P.  has  read  the  United  Presby- 
terian, he  must  have  seen  there  such  caricatures  of  Catho- 
lic Communion  as  the  following  :  It  includes  "  all  parties 
of  professed  Christians  " — "all  who  call  themselves  Chris- 
tians " — "all  who  in  their  own  judgment  are  Christians." 
These  and  similar  misrepresentations  we  consider  very  un- 
kind ;  indeed  we  might  use  a  much  stronger  term. 

For  reasons  such  as  these,  Dr.  P.  has  no  right  to  repre- 
sent the  author  of  this  treatise  as  "  a  man  of  war,"  and  as 
"  warring  against  the  Testimony,  &c,"  in  order  to  produce 
the  impression  that  we  are  the  assailants,  and  he  simply  the 
defender  of  certain  sentiments.  "When  Dr.  P.  uniformly 
speaks  of  the  views  presented  in  our  former  volume  as 
"Mr.  Annan's  doctrine"— as  though  they  were  altogether 
different  from  those  of  the  Presbyterian  Church— he  prac- 
tises a  small  piece  of  strategy  hardly  worthy  of  him.     If 


VI.  PREFACE. 

it  were  not  that  it  would  savor  of  egotism,  we  would  quote 
at  length  a  few  of  the  very  flattering  notices  of  "  Close 
Communion  Tested."  Certainly  such  journals  as  the  Pres- 
byterian, the  Presbyter,  the  North  West  Presbyterian,  the 
New  York  Evangelist,  the  American  Presbyterian,  the 
Presbyterian  Banner,  and  others  of  the  same  prominence, 
are  not  ignorant  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Church.  "Any 
one,"  says  the  Presbyterian,1''  desiring  light  on  this  subject, 
(Close  Communion)  would  do  well  to  procure  this  volume." 
Another  says — "  the  argument  is  overwhelming."  Another 
— "  His  work  is  done  thoroughly  and  well."  Another — 
"  He  hunts  down  the  heresy  of  exclusivenees  to  all  its  hiding- 
places."  .Let  these  suffice  to  prove  that  the  doctrine  of 
u  Close  Communion  Tested  "  is  the  ackowledged  doctrine 
cf  the  several  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  repre- 
sented by  these  journals. 

We  wish  it  to  be  understood  that  when,  in  the  following 
treatise,  we  speak  of  "Dr.  P.'s  doctrine,"  we  take  for 
granted  that  in  general  he  correctly  states  the  prevailing 
sentiment  of  his  Church. 

In  the  matter  of  literary  responsibility,  Dr.  P.  must  not 
expect  exemption  from  its  ordinary  lav/s.  He  published  a 
book,  and  added  in  its  defence  a  long  series  of  articles  ;  in 
both  which  he  severely  reflects  upon  the  sentiments  of  his 
neighbors.  His  writings  are  thus  public  property,  and  it 
is  idle  in  him  to  utter  complaints,  when  they  are  subjected 
to  rigid  criticism.  Besides,  his  own  "Testimony"  "  beseeches 
all  seriously  to  consider  the  ground  of  the  controversy  with 
brethren  of  the  Presbyterian  family."  P.  p.  7,  46.  This 
we  have  endeavored  to  do  in  our  book  on  "  Close  Com- 
munion," and  in  this  defence,  viz  :  "to  consider  the  grounds 
of  the  controversy." 

Allegheny  City,  March  17,  1869. 


A    DEFENCE. 


CHAPTER  L 

THE   STATE  OF  THE  QUESTION. 

N  the  spring  of  1867  the  writer  published  the  vol- 
ume entitled  "  Close  Communion  Tested  by 
Scripture  and  Reason."  Dr.  P.  has  thought  it  ne- 
cessary to  put  forth  a  long  review  of  that  volume — 
and  to  this  we  now  propose  to  make  a  rejoinder. 

Dr.  P.  denies  that  he  teaches  the  doctrine  of  "  Close 
Communion."  He  holds,  he  says  "  what  may,  with 
propriety,  be  termed  Catholic  Communion  ;  that  is, 
communion  among  all  the  household  of  faith  on  Scrip- 
tural principles."  This  statement  being  interpreted 
by  his  practice  means  just  this :  that  his  doctrine  of 
Communion  is  so  very  "Catholic"  as  to  embrace  the 
whole  of  the  U.  P.  denomination,  with  some  thousand 
communicants.  This  is  quite  a  novel  meaning  of  the 
word  "  Catholic,"  i.  e.,  universal !  It  merely  excludes 
a  million  or  two  of  other  acknowledged  Christians. 

Again :  He  says  he  -does  not  hold  that  the  creed, 
which  the  Church  must  "  enforce  "  in  receiving  per- 
sons to  Communion,  should  be  u  an  exhibition  of  every 
one  truth  of  the  Bible."  Very  well.  We  are  glad  to 
hear  it.  But  what  he  believes  is  one  thing :  It  is 
another  and  very  different  thing  to  affirm  that  his 
book  on  "  Church  Fellowship  "  does  not  teach  in  the 
plainest  terms  that  very  doctrine,  which  requires  of 
intending  communicants  u  a  belief  of  every  one  truth 
of  the  Scriptures." 


8  A  Defence. 

To  prove  this  to  be  Dr.  P/s  doctrine,  we  quoted 
from  his  book  as  follows  :  "  Not  only/'  he  says,  "  is 
the  Church  required  to  teach  those  whom  she  receives 
into  her  fellowship  all  that  Christ  has  revealed  in  his 
word  ;  it  is  moreover  requisite  that  she  should  enforce 
the  observance  of  all  that  Christ  has  commanded." 
"  She  may  not  be  silent  in  relation  to  any  one  truth 
which  the  God  of  the  Bible  has  made  known  to  her." 
"  She  has  no  more  right  to  receive  into  her  fellowship 
one  who  rejects  the  truth  or  refuses  to  observe  anything 
which  Christ  has  commanded  than  she  has  to  disregard 
the  authority  of  her  Lord  in  teaching  for  doctrines 
the  commandments  of  men." 

Again  :  Dr.  P.  argues  that  a  person  should  not  be 
received  into  the  fellowship  of  the  Church  on  the 
ground  of  the  truth  which  he  professedly  receives  ; 
also  that  he  should  be  excluded  on  account  of  what  he 
rejects,  though  not  essential  to  salvation — and  he  rea- 
sons as  follows  :  "  The  Church  cannot,  without  ren- 
dering herself  liable  to  the  charge  of  unfaithfulness, 
connive  at  the  rejection  of  any  one  truth  contained  in 
the  revelation  of  the  will  of  God." 

These  are  specimens  of  the  teaching  of  "  Church. 
Fellowship."  But  as  Dr.  P.  says  he  did  not  mean  to 
avow  the  extremely  absurd  doctrine  which  seems  to  be 
taught  in  these  and  other  similar  passages,  it  would  be 
discourteous  to  charge  him  with  it.  It  may  be  ob- 
served, however,  that  in  his  recent  review  of  our  book, 
he  says,  "  The  theory  of  Church  Fellowship  is, 
that  the  Church  should  enforce  the  observance 
of  what  Christ  has  commanded,"  or,  as  he  elsewhere 
states  it — "  the  observance  of  all  things  whatsoever 
Christ  has  commanded."  "  And  consequently,"  he 
adds,  "  if  men  will  not  receive  the  truth  which  she  is 
bound  to  teach,  and  refuse  to  submit  to  her  authority, 
she  cannot  consistently  receive   them  into  her  fellow- 


State  of  the  Question.  9 

ship."  But  is  it  not  one  of  Christ's  "  commands,"  that 
men  should  believe  a  every  one  truth  of  the  Bible?  " 
Of  course  it  is.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  by  his 
own  showing,  Dr.  P.  must  hold  the  extreme  doctrine 
that  every  intending  communicant  must  profess  to 
believe  "  every  one  truth  of  the  Scriptures  I"  It  is 
one  of  Christ's  express  u  commands  that  men  should  so 
believe,"  and  Dr.  P.  says  the  Church  should  "  enforce 
the  observance  of  all  his  commands."  "She  has  no 
right  (he  frequently  assures  us)  to  receive  into  her 
fellowship  one  who  rejects  the  truth  or  refuses  to  ob< 
serve  anything  which  Christ  has  commanded."  P. 
41.  Of  course  he  means,  as  the  Church  understands 
those  commands. 

It  may  appear  most  remarkable  that  a  person  so 
trained  to  controversy  should  express  himself  thus, 
and  yet  positively  deny  that  he  teaches  what  his  words 
plainly  indicate.  Equally  singular  is  the  mode  in 
which  he  escapes  from  the  dilemma.  He  does  not  at- 
tempt to  explain  the  terms  of  his  various  statements — 
but  merely  contents  himself  with  a  denial. 

It  is  obvious,  too,  that  the  Dr.'s  extreme  doctrine,  as 
understood  to  be  taught  in  "  Church  Fellowship,"  is 
most  odious  to  not  a  few  of  his  own  ministerial  breth- 
ren. Thus  a  correspondent  of  the  Christian  Instruc- 
tor, of  Philadelphia,  the  leading  U.  P.  paper,  of  date 
Dec.  8,  1866,  says  of  Dr.  P.'s  book  :  "The  chief  ob- 
jection we  have  to  it  is,  that  it  advocates  a  theory  of 
Church  Fellowship  much  more  rigid  and  exclusive 
than  is  warranted  by  the  Bible  and  laws  of  the  U.  P. 
Church."  This  correspondent  charges  Dr.  P.  with 
un christianizing  all  the  members  of  all  the  churches 
but  our  own — "  a  harsh  and  exclusive  theory,  &c," 
"  a  dead  fly  in  the  ointment,  &c."  So  the  Rev.  Mr. 
McCune,  while  still  a  minister  of  the  U.  P.  Church,  in 
"  reviewing  Dr.  P.'s  book,  says;   "  It  teaches  that   a 


10  A  Defence. 

small  fraction  of  the  Universal  Church  is  guilty  of 
'*  unfaithfulness"  to  God  and  her  trust,  if  she  is  silent 
in  her  creed  concerning  her  interpretation  of  any  one 
truth  in  Divine  Revelation,  and  this  creed  must  be 
fully  subscribed  by  every  member  of  the  church, 
babes  excepted."     P.  35. 

Admitting,  however,  on  the  strength  of  his  own  pos- 
itive denial,  that  Dr.  P.  does  not  teach  this  extremely 
absurd  doctrine  of  Communion,  it  is  equally  plain  that 
he  has  expressed  himself  so  as  to  make  the  impression 
on  many,  even  of  his  own  brethren,  that  he  does  hold 
and  teach  it,  or  something  of  the  sort.  Similar  un- 
intelligible writing  may  be  found  in  his  book  on 
Psalmody,  when  (p.  117)  he  says  of  "  Rouse's  para- 
phrase," "that  as  a  true  and  literal  translation  of  the 
original,  it  is  decidedly  superior  to  any  other  in  the 
English  language" — and  again,  he  says,  "the 
great  question  is,  have  we  Divine  appointment  for 
the  use  of  the  devotional  compositions  of  unin- 
spired men  in  the  worship  of  God  V  The  first  of 
these  statements  is  a  monstrous  exaggeration,  exalting 
Rouse  as  superior  to  our  English  Bibles — and  the  sec- 
ond decides  that  all  Dr.  P/s  prayers  and  sermons  "  in 
the  worship  of  God,"  are  without  "  Divine  Appoint- 
ment !"  For  surely  they  are  "  the  devotional  compo- 
sitions of  an  uninspired  man  •"  and  therefore  on  his 
own  showing  are  destitute  of  "  Divine  Appointment." 

It  is  proper  to  say,  further,  that  the  extremely  ab- 
surd doctrine  of  Communion,  which  was  understood 
by  us  and  many  of  the  U.  P.  brethren  to  be  taught 
in  "  Church  Fellowship,"  is  not  the  one  discussed  in 
our  recent  work.  In  his  second  number  Dr.  P.  tries 
to  make  this  impression  upon  his  U.  P.  readers — but  it 
is  entirely  unworthy  of  bim.  That  was  merely  a  col- 
lateral question,  a  ride  issue,  involving  Dr.  P/s  per- 
sonal accuracy.     The  real  question  as  stated  on  the 


State  of  the  Question.  11 

very  page  which  he  quotes,  is  altogether  different.  It 
is  true  "the  Testimony"  in  arguing  "  the  right  of  per- 
sons to  church  membership/'  utterly  repudiates  the 
doctrine  that  "  there  are  some  truths  which  Christ  has 
made  it  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  profess,  yet  she  may 
not  exercise  her  government  and  discipline  in  main- 
taining these  truths."  This  is  declared  to  be  "  a 
palpable  inconsistency  '*  But  this  sweeping  argument 
is  not  consistently  carried  out,  as  we  proceed  to  show. 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  KEAL  QUESTION    DISCUSSED    IN    "CLOSE 
COMMUNION." 

I  HE  author  of  "  Church  Fellowship  "  may  wear 
all  the  laurels  he  has  won  by  his  misstatement 
of  the  question  •  but  the  real  point  in  controversy  as 
proposed  on  p.  17  of  my  book  is  this : 

"  Is  the  U.  P.  Church  bound,  in  fidelity  to  Christ, 
to  require  an  assent  to  all  the  doctrines  of  the  West- 
minster Confession,  as  also  to  all  the  "  Declarations  " 
of  the  "  Testimony,"  of  each  and  every  one  whom  she 
admits  to  the  %i  Lord's  Table  "  or  adult  baptism  ?" 

It  is  a  curious  circumstance  that  amidst  his  various 
accusations  of  "  shameful  misrepresentation,"  "  inex- 
cusable perversion,"  and  other  equally  Christian  and 
gentlemanly  phraseology,  Dr.  P.  carefully  avoids 
quoting  to  his  U.  P.  readers  this  our  own  statement  of 
the  true  question.  On  the  contrary  he  quotes  our 
mere  collateral  statement  of  the  absurd  teaohing  of 
his  book,  a  side  issue  exposed  in  our  former  chapter, 
as  the  main  question  in  debate  !  In  his  second  num- 
ber he  tells  us :     "  In  the  (U.  P.)  Testimony  we  have 


12  A  Defence. 

the  following  plain  and  explicit  declaration :  **  The 
Church  should  not  extend  Communion  in  sealing  or- 
dinances to  those  who  refuse  adherence  to  her  pro- 
fession or  subjection  to  her  government  and  disci- 
pline." There,  for  reasons  best  known  to  himself,  he 
abruptly  stops ;  but  the  "  Testimony  "  adds — "  or  who 
refuse  to  forsake  a  Communion  which  is  inconsistent 
with  the  profession  that  she  makes,  &c."  Yet  he 
ventures  to  ask — "  why  does  not  he  (Mr.  A.)  meet  the 
question  fairly  and  state  the  question  as  it  is  exhibited," 
&c.  Of  course  he  means  to  insinuate  that  we  pur- 
posely misrepresent  the  real  points  under  discussion. 

In  the  u  Declaration/'  as  quoted  partially  by  Dr. 
P.,  three  several  conditions  of  Communion  at  the 
Lord's  Table,  are  stated  as  follows  : 

1.  The  U.  P.  Church  "  should  not  extend  Com- 
munion in  sealing  ordinances  to  those  who  refuse  ad- 
herence to  her  profession." 

2.  Nor  to  those  "who  refuse  subjection  to  her 
government  and  discipline." 

3.  Nor  to  such  as  "  refuse  to  forsake  a  Commun- 
ion which  is  inconsistent  with  the  profession  she 
makes." 

Now  let  any  person  of  ordinary  intelligence  who  is 
not  blinded  by  prejudice,  compare  these  three  state- 
ments of  the  U.  P.  conditions  of  Communion  with 
our  formula    at  the  commencement   of  this  chapter. 

First,  "  adherence  to  her  (U.  P.)  profession." 
Well,  what  is  that  "  profession  ?"  Our  formula  says, 
it  is  "  the  doctrines  of  the  Westminster  Confession 
and  all  the  Declarations  of  the  u  Testimony."  Is  not 
that  true  ?  Hear  the  Testimony  itself,  (p.  7.)  *  An 
adherence  to  the  Westminster  standards  and  to  the 
'  Declarations '  contained  in  the  Testimony,  will  be  re- 
quired of  those  seeking  Communion  with  us."  Yet 
Dr.  P.  sayB,  **  why  do  you  not  meet  the  subject  fairly  ?" 


Real  Question  discussed,  13 

Will  he  be  so  very  good  as  to  point  out  what  unfairness 
there  is  in  this  part  of  our  statement? 

Secondly :  The  U.  P.  Church  requires  *'  subjec- 
tion to  her  government  and  discipline."  Very  well. 
Does  not  our  formula  include  "  an  assent  to  the  Dec- 
larations of  *  the  Testimony ;'  "  and  does  not  one  of 
these  "  Declarations  "  include  just  this  "subjection  V* 

Thirdly  :  The  U.  P.  Church  has  bound  herself,  in 
faithfulness  to  Christ,  to  exclude  all  who  «f  refuse  to 
forsake  a  Communion  inconsistent  with  her  profes- 
sion." This  too  our  formula  expresess  in  the  fact  that 
it  includes  "  all  the  Declarations  of  the  Testimony  " — 
and  this  is  part  of  "  the  16th  Declaration/ '  p.  34.^ 

In  view  of  this  parallel,  we  are  constrained  to  say 
that  Dr.  P.'s  kind  and  fraternal  charges  of  "  glaring 
misrepresentations,  &c,"  merely  prove  that  he  has  no 
better  argument,  and  therefore  displays  too  much  tem- 
per. But  we  must  now  quote  his  own  statement  of  the 
question  as  embraced  in  "  the  Declaration  of  the  Tes- 
timony," thus  :  "  The  question  then  is,  do  you  main- 
tain that  the  Church  ought  to  admit  to  her  fellowship 
those  who  reject  the  truth  which  she  has  embraced, 
and  refuse  to  be  subject  to  the  authority  which  she  is 
bound  to  exercise  under  her  Lord  ?"  "  Those  who  reject 
the  truth  !"  (Of  course  he  means  "  the  truth  "  taught 
in  Scripture,  not  truth  of  science  and  art.)  But  this 
is  mere  trifling  with  the  real  merits  of  the  subject. 
Your  own  "  Testimony ".  says,  those  who  commune 
with  the  U.  P.  Church  must  adhere  to  the  Westmin- 
ster Standards  and  the  18  "  Declarations  of  the  Tes- 
timony/ But  according  to  Dr.  P.'s  "  question,"  the 
man  who  should  say  he  was  not  acquainted  with  such 
"  truths  "  as  these  :  "  A  Homer  is  the  tenth  partof  an 
Ephah."  "  The  asses  of  Kish,  Saul's  father,  were 
lost," — and  therefore  could  not  receive  them:  Such  a 
man  does  not  receive  u  the  truth  " — ergo,  the  Church 


14  A  Defence. 

ought  not  to  admit  him  to  her  fellowship.  These 
u  are  truths  which  the  Divine  King  has  taught  and  re- 
quires the  Church  to  teach;"  ergo,  "  she  is  fnot  under 
obligations  to  receive  such  a  rejector  of  "  truth  "  into 
fellowship."  So  teaches  Dr.  P.,  if  his  language  before 
quoted  has  the  ordinary  meaning.  We,  on  the  other 
hand, — if  the  intending  communicant  is  sound  in  the 
great  fundamentals  (of  which  repentance  toward  God 
and  faith  in  Christ  are  essentials),  and  is  leading  a  seri- 
ous moral  life — we  receive  him,  though  he  may  know 
nothing  about  the  questions  of  u  Saul's  asses,"  and 
many  another  u  truth  "  taught  in  the  Bible,  and  which 
"  the  Church  is  required  to  teach." 

It  must  be  plain,  therefore,  that  the  real  point  of 
the  doctrinal  controversy  relates  to  the  amount  and  na- 
ture of  "  the  truth "  which  Christ  has  commanded 
the  Church  to  demand  of  applicants  for  sealing  ordi- 
nances. Dr.  P.  and  his  Testimony  say,  "  the  truth  " 
includes  "  the  Westminster  Standards  and  the  18  Dec- 
larations contained  in  the  Testimony," — and  that  "  an 
adherence  to  these  must  be  required."  (P.  7.)  Pres- 
byterians on  the  contrary  believe  that  there  are  some 
hundreds  of  truths  in  those  Standards  and  "  Declara- 
tions," as  well  as  some  untruths  in  the  latter,  the  re- 
ception of  which  no  Church  has  a  right  from  Christ  to 
make  u  a  term  of  communion." 

We  trust  that  it  is  now  obvious  to  the  dullest  com- 
prehension, that  the  great  question  is  this  :  "  Does 
Christ  require  the  U.  P.  or  any  other  Church,  to  make 
adherence  to  the  Westminster  Standards  and  the  18 
Declarations  of  the  Testimony "  their  "  terms  of 
Communion  ?"  This  is  the  main  question  discussed  in 
our  book  on  "  Close  Communion."  Yet  the  Dr.  af- 
firms more  than  once,  that  "  the  33  chapters  and  160 
sections"  of  the  Confession,  "are  things  which  have 
really  nothing  to  do  with  the  merits  of  the  question  V 


Real  Question  discussed  15 

And  the  same  is  said  of  "the  18  Declarations  of  the 
Testimony."  "  Nothing  to  do  with  the  question  I" 
Astonishing !  The  very  creed  which  you  subscribe, 
and  "  adherence "  to  which  you  "  require  of  those 
seeking  Communion "  with  the  U.  P.  Church,  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  Scriptural  "  terms 
of  Communion  I"  It  would  have  been  nearly  as  true 
if  he  had  said  "  the  Bible  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
question  !"  It  is  the  binding  of  this  "  creed"  of  160 
sections  and  18  Declarations  upon  the  necks  of  those 
who  are  applicants  for  sealing  ordinances,  that  we  re- 
gard, and  we  trust  have  proved,  to  be  an  unchristian 
usurpation  of  a  right  which  Christ  never  gave  to  any 
Church.  This  is  the  question  discussed  in  our  book. 
The  statements  now  made  also  prove  how  unmeaning 
and  irrelevant  are  such  questions  as  these :  "But  Mr. 
A.,  do  Timothy  and  Titus  teach  that  the  people  may  re- 
ject any  truth  which  the  ministry  are  bound  to  believe 
and  teach,"  "that  the  people  should  be  required  to  re- 
ceive only  the  foundation  truths  of  the  Gospel,  and 
let  the  remainder  take  care  of  themselves."  But  this 
is  extremely  frivolous.  No  one  is  so  absurd  as  to  say 
that  "the  people  may  innocently  reject  any  truth"  of 
the  Scriptures.  All  except  infidels  believe  all  that  the 
Bible  teaches,  so  soon  as  it  is  fully  and  fairly  presented. 
The  question  of  communion  has  reference  to  those  "dis- 
ciples" *,  e.,  learners,  as  the  word  signifies,  who  ask  lor 
admission  to  sealing  ordinances.  We  teach  that  no 
church  has  a  right  to  exact  "an  adherence"  to  33  chap- 
ters and  160  sections  of  the  Westminster  Confession, 
containing  several  thousand  theological  and  moral  pro- 
positions, and  besides  18  chapters  of  "Declarations,"  of 
those  who  apply  for  communion,  provided  they  profess 
the  foundation  truths,  and  give  Scriptural  evidence  of 
saving  faith  and  true  repentance.  We  are  willing  to 
let  many  truths  of  the  Bible,  such  as  that  relating  to 


16  A  Defence. 

"the  Ephah  and  Homer/'  &c.  await  further  instructions. 
But  this  is  not  to  say  that  only  "the  foundation  truths" 
should  "be  received  by  the  people."  Far  from  it.  So 
when  Dr.  P.  says :  "According  to  the  theory  of  Cath- 
olic Communion,  all  distinctive  principles  must  be  drop- 
ped :"  "Ministers  are  required  to  be  silent,  and  hold 
back  those  truths  by  which  God  sanctifies  his  people," 
&c,  he  merely  exposes  himself,  not  the  doctrine  of  Cath- 
olic Communion.  He  seems  to  think  that  when  Pres- 
byterian ministers  admit  a  U.  P.  to  Communion  with 
them,  they  must  ever  after  "be  silent"  on  the  duty  of 
using  other  songs  besides  the  Book  of  Psalms :  and 
that,  if  we  admit  a  pious  Baptist,  we  must  necessarily 
be  silent  forever  after  on  the  duty  of  infant  baptism ! 


CHAPTER  III. 

DK.    P.    PLAYS   PAST    AND    LOOSE    WITH   HIS 
PRINCIPLES. 

*E  have  now  sufficiently  exposed  Dr.  P/s  contro- 
versial shillm  putting  a  mere  side  issue  as  stated 
in  "Close  Communion  Tested,"  in  the  room  of  the  main 
question  as  frequently  propounded  in  that  volume.  Let 
us  now  look  fairly  in  the  face  Dr.  P/s  doctrine  as  taught 
in  the  "Testimony." 

The  16th  "Declaration"  contains,  as  before  quoted, 
three  distinct  disqualifications,  as  terms  of  Communion," 
viz :  "a  refusal  to  adhere  to  the  (U.  P.)  profession" — 
"a  refusal  of  subjection  to  the  government  and  discip- 
line" of  that  church — and  "refusing  to  forsake  a  Com- 
munion which  is  inconsistent  with  her  profession." 

Are  these  "terms  of  Communion"  taught  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, or  consistent  with  truth?  In  order  to  answer  this 
question   we  of  course  must  fir-st  ascertain    carefully 


Br.  P.  plays  f ant  and  loose.  17 

what  is  meant  by  the  phrase,  "the  profession  that 
the  church  makes."  Here  "the  Testimony"  is  very  ex- 
plicit :  "  If  they  (private  members)  are  professors  at  all, 
and  if  their  membership  constitutes  them  professors, 
they  are  professors  of  all  its  (the  church's)  principles, 
and  of  course  have  come  under  an  implied,  if  not  an  ex- 
press, obligation  to  maintain  them."  But  what  is  inclu- 
ded in  the  phrase,  "all  the  church's  principles  ?"  The 
"Testimony"  answers :  "an  adherence  to  the  Westmin- 
ster Standards,"  and  to  the  "Declarations"  in  the  follow- 
ing Testimony,"  will  be  required  of  those  seeking  Com- 
munion with  us."  Such  is  the  general  rule — the  only 
exceptions  are  the  "babes,"  "who  because  of  weakness 
of  faith  or  smallness  of  attainments,  or  difficulties  on 
some  points,"  should  not  be  excluded. 

It  is  obvious,  therefore,  by  the  express  teachings  of 
the  "Testimony,"  that  the  "principles"  to  which  "an 
adherence"  is  required  are  the  Confession,  including 
the  Larger  and  Snorter  Catechisms,  which  are  part  of 
"the  Standards" — and  to  these  we  must  add  the  18 
Declarations  of  "the  Testimony."  The  creed,  there- 
fore, to  which  Dr.  P.  and  "the  Testimony"  require  "an 
adherence"  of  intending  Communicants,  is  as  follows:  33 
chapters,  and  18  "Declarations,"  and  196  questions  of 
the  Larger  Catechism  (to  say  nothing  of  the  Shorter), 
such  are  "the  terms  of  Communion"  of  Dr.  P/s  "Tes- 
timony." 

The  author  of  "Church  Fellowship"  is  very  explicit 
in  regard  to  these  "terms  of  Communion."  Hear  him  : 
"How  is  the  church  to  determine  whether  the  individ- 
ual who  desires  to  enjoy  her  fellowship  does  make 
a  Scriptural  profession  such  as  is  required  of  all 
who  "call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  His 
answer  is  this  :  "In  her  Confession  of  Faith,  the 
Church  has  declared  what  she  believes  to  be  compre- 
hended in  a  Scriptural  profession ;  and  if  he  is  prepa- 


18  A  Defence. 

red  to  unite  with  her  in  this  testimony  for  the  truth, 
viz  :  the  Westminster  Confession  and  the  "Testimony," 
she  is  bound  to  welcome  him,  &c,  p.  61.  "But  if  he 
(the  applicant)  rejects  her  Testimony,"  adds  Dr.  P.,  she 
is  under  equal  obligations  to  regard  him  as  one  who 
"walketh  disorderly;"  therefore  to  withdraw  from  eccle- 
siastical fellowship  with  him."  Observe  the  language  here 
employed  :•  'If  he  rejects  her  testimony" — no  distinc- 
tion is  made  between  those  great  essential  doctrines  which 
lie  at  the  foundation  of  all  saving  faith  and  true  piety, 
and  those  of  less  importance  in  the  way  of  salvation. 
No  distinction  is  even  hinted  between  such  parts  of  "the 
Confession"  as  teach  that  "the  Old  Testament  is  in 
Hebrew,"  "and  the  New  Testament  in  Greek,"  &c, 
and  the  great  essentials  of  the  Divinity  of  our  Blessed 
Lord,  justificaion  by  faith,  &c.  These  all  are  "her  Tes- 
timony"— and  Dr.  P.  says  if  the  applicant  rejects  the 
church's  "Testimony,"  she  must  reject  Mm. 

But  here  a  favorite  piece  of  controversial  strategy 
is  practised  by  Dr.  P.  thus  :  According  to  "Church  Fel- 
lowship,"!^ says  the  creed  of  the  church  contains  a  sum- 
mary of  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  And  he  reasons 
thus:  "If an  individual  declares  that  there  tiresome 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  creed  that  he  rejects,  is  the  church 
under  obligations  to  receive  him?"  Of  course  he  answers 
in  the  negative.  But  these  passages  obviously  mean 
that  all  the  several  thousand  doctrines  of  the  Confes- 
sion are  "the  great  doctrines  of  the  Bible."  And  the 
rejection  of  some  of  these  doctrines,  viz  :  of  "the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,"  disqualifies  for  Communion.  The  au- 
thor of  "Church  Fellowship"  puts  a  plausible  face  on 
his  narrow  exclusive  doctrine,  which  he  repeats  many 
times,  and  which  requires  "a  belief  of  the  great  doc- 
trines of  the  Bible,"  But  when  we  inquire  what  he 
means  by  these  "great  doctrines,"  we  are  referred  to  the 
"Confession  of  Faith,"  in  which  "the  church  has  de- 


Dr.  P.  plays  fast  and  loose.  19 

clared  what  is  comprehended  in  a  Scriptural  profession." 
Then  he  falls  back  upon  the  33  chapters,  160  Sections, 
&c,  of  the  Westminster  Standards. 

Dr.  P.  evidently  feels  the  pressure  of  the  argument 
at  this  point.  Hence  he  seeks  to  escape  from  the  plain 
inferences  by  such  evasions  as  these  :  He  says  he  would 
"deal  tenderly"  with  those  who  "are  unable  to  give  an 
intelligent  assent  to  some  of  the  more  sublime  doctrines 
of  the  creed."  Again,  he  says.  "If  his  difficulty  con- 
sists in  the  acknowledged  want  of  ability  fully  to  com- 
prehend them,  i.  e.,some  of  the  doctrines  contained  in  the 
system  of  theology" — "while  there  is  no  disposition  to 
reject  them,  nor  unwillingness  to  receive  instruction," 
the  church  will  deal  tenderly  with  him  and  will  assist 
him,  &c,"  Observe  with  what  studious  care  he  shuns, 
both  in  his  book  and  in  his  review,  the  fair  following 
out  of  these  limitations  of  his  theory.  He  does  not 
plainly  say  that  such  dissenters  and  doubters  should  be 
received  to  the  Communion  table.  No:  that  would  be 
directly  in  the  teeth  of  his  own  ''Testimony,"  viz  :  If 
they  are  professors  at  all,  they  are  professors  of 
all  its  [the  Church's]  principles,"  Again  :  an  ad- 
herence to  the  Westminster  Standards  and  to  the  "Dec- 
larations of  the  Testimony"  will  be  required  of  those 
seeking  communion  with  us."  Thus  he  "plays  fast 
and  loose"  with  his  "principles."  If  he  really  means 
to  say  that  he  would  receive  to  sealing  ordinances  such 
doubters  who  cannot  "give  an  intelligent  assent" 
to  some  of  the  principles  of  the  Confession  and  Tes- 
timony, why  not  say  so  openly  and  fairly?  But 
this  would  be  to  fly  directly  in  the  face  of  his  own  "prin- 
ciples." Interpreted  by  the  "Testimony,"  this  would 
be  to  receive  to  Communion  persons  who  "are  not  pro- 
fessors at  all."  We  concede,  however,  that  both  Dr. 
P.  and  the  /'Testimony"  have  thus  left  a  very  wide 
door  open  for  a  large  class  of  ecclesiastical  infants — 


20  A  Defence. 

many  of  them  very  old  "babes,"  who  sit  down  at  the 
U.  P.  Communion  tables,  while  habitually  rejecting 
some  of  his  great  principles,  and  therefore  "not  profes- 
sors at  all."  This  is  the  practice  of  the  Dr.  and  others, 
as  will  be  shown  hereafter.  The  class  of  "babes"  who 
require  to  be  dealt  with  tenderly  is  quite  numerous  on 
the  subject  of  Psalmody,  to  say  nothing  of  some  of  the 
other  "great  doctrines." 

This  may  be  as  good  a  place  as  any  other  to  notice 
another  of  Dr.  P/s  ingenious  turns  in  logic.  After  re- 
ferring to  the  Old  School  Confession  containing,  as  it 
does,  33  chapters  and  160  sections  of  moral  and  theo- 
logical truth,  he  quotes  that  volume  thus  :  "  Ministers 
are  directed  to  require  parents  to  instruct  their  chil- 
dren in  the  principles  of  our  holy  religion,  an  excel- 
lent summary  of  which  we  have  in  the  Confession  and 
Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms."  On  this  he  com- 
ments as  follows :  "  Of  course  it  is  understood  that 
those  who  are  received  into  the  communion  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  profess  their  faith  in  these  prin- 
ciples." What  "  is  understood  ?"  Do  you  mean  to 
say  that  our  rule  for  admitting  persons  to  communion, 
requires  them  to  profess  their  faith  in  all  the  truths 
taught  in  the  Confession  and  Catechisms  before  they 
are  received?  This  you  must  mean,  if  your  argument 
has  any  application  to  the  question  at  issue.  But  this, 
you  ought  to  know,  is  not  true.  In  the  very  volume 
you  were  reviewing  are  the  following  statements  by  our 
General  Assembly  :  "We  have  ever  admitted  to  our 
communion  all  those  who  in  the  judgment  of  charity , 
were  the  sincere  disciples  of  Christ,"  "We  require 
nothing  more  than  faith,  love,  and  obedience  to  Him." 
M  We  admit  to  fellowship  in  sacred  ordinances  all  such 
as  we  have  gi  ound  to  believe  Christ  will  at  last  admit 
to  the  kingdom  of  Heaven."  These  extracts  Dr.  P. 
had  before  his  eyes.     Yet  he  ventures  to  charge  our 


Dr.  P.  plays  fast  and  loose.  21 

Church  with  holding  a  doctrine  of  communion  similar 
to  his  own !  What  a  wonderful  logician  is  Dr.  P  ? 
Presbyterian  parents  lt  are  recommended  to  instruct 
their  children  in  the  principles  of  the  Confession  and 
Catechisms."  Ergo,  no  person  can  be  admitted  to 
communion  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  who  does  not 
adopt  the  several  thousand  propositions  of  those  stan- 
dards I  Our  readers  must  characterize  this  sort  of 
logic  as  they  please.  It  is  quite  unanswerable.  Yet, 
on  the  strength  of  such  reasoning  as  this,  Dr.  P.  ven- 
tures to  apply  to  the  author  of  "  Close  Communion 
Tested"  the  awful  language  of  our  Saviour  to  the  Phar- 
isees, "  Thou  hypocrite  !  First  cast  the  mote  out  of 
thine  own  eye,  &c !"  He  means,  that  while  disapprov- 
ing of  his  theory,  we  ourselves  require  the  adoption,  as 
terms  of  communion,  of  the  33  chapters  and  160  sec- 
tions of  the  Confession  and  196  questions  of  the 
Larger  Catechism,  of  all  whom  we  admit  to  have  chil- 
dren baptized  !  Therefore  he  says,  "  Thou  hypocrite  Vf 
Well  might  Drs.  Cooper  and  Barr,  of  U.  P.  Evangeli- 
cal Repository,  say  that  Dr.  P.  gets  himself  into  various 
"  tight  places."  This  we  think  is  one  of  the  tightest 
of  all. 

Our  ministers  are  directed  "to  exhort  the  parents  to 
the  careful  performance  of  their  duty  " — viz  :  "to  teach 
their  child  to  read  the  word  of  Grod,  and  instruct  it  in 
the  principles  of  our  holy  religion  as  contained  in  the 
Scriptures" — and  the  "  excellent  summary  in  the  Con- 
fession, &c,  is  recommended  to  them  "  [observe,  re- 
commended, not  bound  upon  them  as  terms  of  commun- 
ion,) "  for  their  direction  and  assistance  in  the  discharge 
of  this  important  duty."  Dr.  P.  is  in  a  "  tight  place," 
for  he  interprets  "a  recommendation  to  teach  the  Con- 
fession, &c."  as  an  actual  "term  of  communion!"  and 
on  such  grounds  a3  these,  he  exclaims,  "  Thou  hypo- 
crite !" 


22  A  Defence. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  FATHERS  ON  CLOSE  COMMUNION". 

EAYING  out  of  view  the  single  exception  of 
"  babes,"  let  us  see  how  the  reviewer  disposes 
of  the  arguments  of  ff  Close  Communion  Tested," 
against  the  general  rule  which  he  has  adopted. 

In  the  H  Historical  View  "  (pp.19 — 55)  the  first  au- 
thority adducced  by  us  was  Calvin.  Among  much 
other  pertinent  statement  by  the  Prince  of  Reformers, 
our  book  cited  this:  "  Even  if  the  doctrine  is  mingled 
with  some  errors,  I  am  satisfies  if  fundamental 
doctrine  is  maintained."  This  is  the  result  of  his 
reasoning,  and  he  adds  :  "  Thus  even  in  Geneva  (from 
which  he  had  been  banished)  may  the  pious  and  ortho- 
dox participate  in  the  sacraments."  "  I  will  never  be 
induced  to  be  the  author  of  a  schism  until  I  shall  have 
been  convinced  that  the  Church  has  undeniably  de- 
parted from  the  worship  of  God  and  the  preaching  of 
His  word."  In  this  last  clause  he  doubtless  points  at 
the  corruptions  of  Popery.  In  these  views,  Dr.  Mason 
assures  us,  "  he  harmonized  with  the  common  voice  of 
the  people  of  God  !" 

Now  test  Dr.  P.'s  narrow  exclusiveness  by  these  no- 
ble utterances  of  the  great  Reformer.  Is  the  Doctor 
"satisfied  if  fundamental  doctrine  is  maintained  ?" 
Does  he  exclude  the  Presbyterians  and  Covenanters 
from  the  Lord's  Table,  because,  to  use  Calvin's  words, 
"  They  have  undeniably  departed  from  the  worship  of 
God  and  the  preaching  of  His  word."  On  the  con. 
trary,  when  Dr.  P.  is  in  one  of  his  kindly  moods,  he 
calls  these  Churches  u  different  sisters  composing  the 
household  of  faith  " — expresses  toward  them  feelings 


Fathers  on  Close  Communion.  23 

of  the  kindest  fraternal  regard,  and  wishes  them  success 
in  all  their  works  of  faith  and  labors  of  love" — p.  69. 
Yet  he  refuses  to  commune  with  them  !  So  obvious  is 
it  that  the  views  of  Calvin  on  Communion  were  as  dif- 
ferent from  those  of  Dr.  P.  as  light  from  darkness. 

But  what  has  the  author  of  "Church  Fellowship  " 
to  say  to  this  argument  ?  Nothing  I  In  all  the  vast 
columns  of  his  review  of  "  Close  Communion  Tested," 
the  name  of  Calvin  is  not  mentioned,  nor  his  authority 
once  alluded  to.  Surely  this  is  "  expressive  silence." 
We  find  large  discourse  about  "  the  necessity  and  im- 
portance of  a  Creed,  the  value  of  truth  and  the  obli- 
gation of  the  Church  to  teach  and  defend  the  whole 
truth  of  the  Scriptures  " — which  nobody  denies.  Nay, 
Dr.  P.  even  discourses  upon  the  "prevalent  neglect  of 
expository  preaching,"  and  sundry  other  common 
places,  thus,  like  certain  commentators,  proving  himself 
"great  on  the  easy  passages."  but  of  Calvin  and  his 
authority  he  has  nothing  to  say. 

The  next  authority  quoted  in  the  "  Historical  View  " 
is  that  of  John  Knox  and  others  of  the  noblest  of  the 
Scottish  worthies.  "  The  Overture,"  prepared  by  au- 
thority of  the  Associate  Reformed  Synod  in  1787,  by 
such  leading  minds  as  John  Mason,  Robert  Annan,  and 
John  Smith,  is  quoted  thus  :  "  Knox  held  commun- 
ion with  the  foreign  Churches ;  Welsh  with  the  Pro- 
testant Churches  of  France;  Moncreif  with  those  of 
Holland ;  Renwick  received  ordination  in  the  Church 
of  Holland.  And  it  is  a  fact  that  the  Scottish  Com- 
missioners (viz  :  to  the  Westminster  Assembly]  Ruth- 
erford, Henderson,  Bailey  and  others  held  communion 
with  their  brethren  in  England."  Of  these  "  regular 
and  orderly  Protestant  Churches,"  the  Committee  say, 
u  Our  fathers  never  thought  of  pronouncing  their  com- 
munion unclean,"  "far  less  did  they  ever  think  of  to- 
tally rejecting  it." 


24  A  Defence. 

Now  if  Dr.  P.  has  mentioned  any  one  of  these  great 
Scottish  names  in  his  review,  it  has  escaped  our  notice. 
The  only  part  in  which  he  seems  to  refer  to  these  and 
other  similar  cases  is  his  quotation  from  the  "  Over- 
ture :"  "  There  is  a  surprising  harmony  between  the 
Confessions  of  all  the  Protestant  Churches,"  viz : 
"when  they  came  out  of  mystical  Babylon."  This  is 
no  doubt  true — but  does  the  Dr.  really  think  those 
early  churches  were  more  nearly  agreed  with  each 
other  than  the  U.  P.  Church  and  the  '  Covenanters ' 
of  this  country  V1  Yet  he  refuses  to  commune  with 
the  latter,  or  to  permit  his  members  to  sit  with  them  at 
the  Lord's  Table  !  This  shows  how  little  of  the  spirit 
of  John  Knox  and  his  Scottish  brethren  is  found  in 
the  author  of  "Church  Fellowship."  Thus  it  is  evi- 
dent to  common  sense  that  he  stands  in  direct  antago- 
nism to  the  following  from  the  "  Overture  :"  "  We 
will  not  pretend  *  *  *  *  to  say  that  the  com- 
munion of  all  the  other  Protestant  Churches  is  so  im- 
pure that  it  would  contaminate  us  to  touch,  taste,  or 
handle  it  in  any  case."  When  we  come  to  speak  of  the 
meaning  of  the  article  on  Communion  adopted  by  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  we  will  demonstrate  how  far 
the  Churches  of  the  Eeformation  were  agreed  on 
"  Psalmody,"  as  Luther,  the  great  "  composer  of 
Hymns,"  understood  that  subject,  as  well  as  some 
other  topics  of  importance. 

But  there  is  one  very  knotty  point  in  the  "  Over- 
ture" of  Mason,  Annan,  and  Smith,  which  the  review- 
er is  careful  not  to  quote.  In  the  chapter  on  "  Reli- 
gious Worship"  they  say  :  u  We  are  not  afraid  to  as- 
sert and  vindicate  the  'propriety  (observe  u  the  pro- 
priety," not  the  exclusive  necessity)  of  using  the 
psalms  and  songs  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  praise 
of  Grod."  And  to  show  what  "  songs  of  the  Old 
Testament "  are  meant,  they  add  :     "  We  are  extremely 


Fathers  on  Close  Communion,  25 

sorry  to  have  observed  a  growing  disrelish  in  some 
churches  for  the  Psalms  of  David  and  other 
songs  of  Scripture."  Will  the  reviewer  please  give 
his  attention  for  a  few  moments  ?  He  teaches  in  his 
book  on  psalmody  that  we  have  "  NO  authority  to  use 
[in  praise]  any  other  than  the  [150]  songs  contained 
in  the  Book  of  Psalms."  And  he  threatens  us  with 
the  fate  of  "Nadab  and  Abihu,"  if  we  venture  to  use 
any  other,  because  without  Divine  authority,  and  we 
thus  virtually  offer  "  a  pig  instead  of  a  kid."  Yet  the 
Committee  of  "  The  Overture"  say,  "we  are  ex- 
tremely sorry  to  observe  a  growing  disrelish  " — for 
what  ? — for  worship  for  which,  says  Dr.  P.,  "  there  is 
no  Divine  authority,  and  which  exposes  to  the  terrible 
fate  of  Nadab  and  Abihu."  Whether  the  fathers  of 
the  Committee  or  Dr.  P.  be  the  more  worthy  of  confi- 
dence is  easily  decided. 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  following  extract  from  the 
"  Overture,"  made  very  prominent  in  "  Close  Com- 
munion," Dr.  P.  is  equally  careful  not  to  quote,  viz : 
"  We  do  not  mean  to  say  that  hymns  of  human  com- 
position may  not  be  lawfully  used  in  any  case  what- 
ever. But  we  think  it  safest  generally  to  adhere  to 
the  Scriptural  psalmody,"  viz  ;  as  above  described,  in- 
cluding "  other  songs  of  Scripture,"  as  well  as  the  150 
psalms.  This  is  what  a  Committee  consisting  of  the 
most  learned  and  distinguished  fathers  of  the  A.  R. 
Church  say  in  regard  to  "  Religious  Worship."  So 
that  it  is  demonstrated  that  Dr.  P.  has  abandoned  the 
Scriptural  ground  of  those  fathers. 

But  Dr.  P.  quotes  an  act  of  the  A.  R.  Synod,  which 
was  passed,  he  tells  us,  when  the  Rev.  Robert  Annan, 
the  author  of  these  extracts  from  the  "Overture,"  was 
its  moderator.  Part  of  this  act  reads  as  follows  :  "  It 
is  the  will  of  God  that  the  sacred  songs  of  Scripture 
be  used  in  his  worship  to  the  end  of  the  world."    "  The 


26  A  Defence. 

sacred  songs  of  Scripture  ?"  Is  that  the  same  as  to 
say  with  Dr.  P.,  we  have  no  authority  to  use  any- 
other  than  the  150  psalms  ?"  So  that  the  Dr.'s  own 
quotation  condemns  himself.  Will  he  venture  to  af- 
firm that  there  are  no  "  sacred  songs  in  Scripture  "  but 
the  Book  of  Psalms  ? 

So  when  the  act  condemns  "  the  substitution  of  de- 
votional songs  composed  by  uninspired  men  in  the  place 
of  these  sacred  songs  of  Scripture  " — what  Presbyte- 
rian in  his  right  senses  desires  to  make  any  such  "sub- 
stitution." Dr.  P.  is  guilty  of  something  of  this  sort  j 
for  he  substitutes  a  part  of  "  the  songs  of  Scripture  " 
in  the  place  of  the  whole  ;  the  150  songs  of  one  book, 
in  the  place  of  "  the  other  songs  of  Scripture."  Worse 
still,  he  substitutes  large  parts  of  song  "  composed  by 
an  uninspired  man  "  [Ptcuss]  in  the  place  of  the  inspired 
songs.     Here  are  a  few  out  of  hundreds  of  examples  : 

PROSE  VERSION.  DR.  P.'S  INSPIRED  SONGS. 

I  delayed  not.  I  did  not  stay  nor  linger  long 

As  those  that  slothful  are. 

I  thought  on  my  ways.  I  thought  upon  my  former  ways, 

And  did  my  life  well  try  ! 

Rose  up  against  us.  Rose  up  in  wrath 

To  make  of  us  their  prey. 

The  moon  to  rule  by  night.      Also  the  moon  so  clear 

Which  shincth  in  our  sight. 

To  Thee  my  help  alone, 
Unto  Thee.  For  Thou  well  understands 

All  my  complaint  and  moan. 

Now  the  question  is  this  :  What  right  has  the  Dr. 
to  "substitute"  all  this  "human  composition"  in  the 
room  of  the  inspired  text  in  the  first  column  ?  Thus 
again  he  condemns  himself. 

Another  clause  of  "  The  Act"  calls  Rouse  a  "  safe 
translation."     Now  if  by  "  translation"  be  meant  "  in- 


Fathers  on  Close  Communion,  27 

terpretation,"  which  is  one  of  Webster's  definitions,  it 
is  probably  safe  enough  except  in  a  few  instances.  But 
here  again  "The  Act,"  as  quoted  by  Dr.  P.,  condemns 
himself.  For  on  page  117  of  his  Book  on  Psalmody 
he  calls  Rouse  "  a  true  and  literal  translation  of  the 
original,  and  as  such  decidedly  superior  to  any  oth- 
er in  the  English  language."  Of  course  he  must 
believe  Rouse  to  be  not  only  "  safe  "  but  "  more  true 
and  literal"  than  the  prose  version  of  our  Bibles, 
which  is  in  the  English  language !  But  this  is  mon- 
strous. For  our  part  we  greatly  prefer  the  phraseol- 
ogy employed  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland  in  their  "  Act"  adopting  Rouse,  viz: 
t(  Rouse's  Paraphrase,"  which  they  repeat  twenty 
times  with  slight  variations.  Ralph  Erskine  cer- 
tainly knew  the  meaning  of  the  word  fJ  paraphrase " 
when  he  wrote  his  "  Paraphrase  of  the  Song  of  Solo- 
mon." Did  he  mean  "  a  true  and  literal  translation  ?" 
No :  the  single  line,  "  Draw  me  j  we  will  run  after 
Thee " — is  versified  into  twelve  lines  ;  and  so  of  the 
rest.  This  is  what  the  Church  of  Scotland  meant 
when  she  used  the  terms,  "  Rouse's  Paraphrase," 
"  Rouse's  Psalms,"  &c,  but  avoided  the  term  version. 

So  also  when  Messrs.  Annan,  Mason,  and  Smith 
say  in  "  The  Overture,"  that  "  there  is  not  a  single 
point  in  doctrine,  worship,  discipline,  and  government 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  for  which  we  do  not  con- 
tend"— they  of  course  included  the  sixty-seven  "  para- 
phrases "  and  five  hymns  used  in  that  Church  :  such 
hymns,  for  example,  as  those  of  Addison,  "  When  all 
Thy  mercies,  O  my  God  •"  "  The  spacious  firmanent  on 
high,"  &c,  &c.  But  Dr.  P.  could  not  see  this  expres- 
sion of  the  views  of  "  the  Fathers  " — at  least  he  takes 
no  notice  of  it.     It  did  not  suit  him. 

But  Dr.  P.  also  informs  us  that  "  father  Annan," 
the  author  of  the  "  Overture  "  which  teaches  so  much 


28  A  Defence. 

heresy,  was  Moderator  of  the  A.  It.  Synod  which 
adopted  "  the  Act "  aforesaid.  This  he  is  careful  to 
tell  us  more  than  once.  But  this  is  rather  against, 
than  in  favor  of,  his  notions  of  the  views  of  that  hon- 
ored "  father."  He  well  knows  that  according  to 
Presbyterian  usages,  the  Moderator  seldom  takes  any 
part  in  the  discussion  \  and  especially  he  has  no  vote, 
except  in  case  of  a  tie  among  the  members.  Of  course 
there  is  no  evidence  that "  the  father  "  favored  "  the 
Act,"  except  that  he  signed  it  as  presiding  officer,  to 
give  it  the  sanction  of  the  Synod — which  he  was  bound 
to  do,  whether  he  approved  of  it  or  not.  Thus  again 
the  Dr.'s  logic  is  sadly  at  fault. 

Of  the  same  inconsequential  sort  of  logic  is  the  as- 
sertion that  "  father  Annan  "  must  have  "  concurred 
with  his  brethren  "  in  the  "  Act,"  because  (says  Dr. 
P.)  "  he  was  a  prominent  member  of  the  Synod."  But 
this  is  a  miserable  subterfuge.  If  Dr.  P.  will  look  at 
pages  39  and  40  of  "  Close  Communion  Tested,"  he 
will  find  a  series  of  "  Acts  "  of  the  very  same  A.  K. 
Synod,  passed  in  1811-16,  in  which  a  resolution  cen- 
suring Drs.  Mason,  Clark  and  Matthews  for  communing 
with  the  Presbyterian  churches  of  New  York  was 
voted  down,  only  one  person  besides  the  mover  and 
seconder  being  in  its  favor  !  In  this  emphatic  mode 
did  the  Synod  refuse  to  "  declare  their  disapprobation 
of  the  deportment  of  said  brethren."  Now  will  Dr. 
P.  please  observe,  that  "  Father  Annan"  was  "a 
prominent  member  "  of  the  A.  B.  Synod  whilst  these 
enormities  were  enacted  !  His  death  did  not  occur 
till  1819.  Thus  by  his  own  showing  that  «  Father" 
must  have  approved  of  "  Catholic  Communion,"  as 
practised  in  New  York  by  Mason,  Matthews,  and 
Clarke !  It  is  a  painful  illustration  of  Dr.  P.'s  can- 
dor and  fairness,  that  these  expressions  of  "Father 
Annan's  "  views  on  n  Catholic  Communion  "  are  not 


Fathers  on  Close  Communion.  29 

so  much  as  alluded  to  in  the  vast  columns  of  his  re- 
view of  our  book  on  Close  Communion  ! 

Now  on  the  basis  of  these  notorious  facts  and  the 
inevitable  inferences  derived  from  them,  we  appeal  to 
all  intelligent  and  candid  men,  whether  it  be  not  true, 
as  stated  in  our  "  Close  Communion,"  that  the  views 
of  "  the  fathers/'  and  especially  of  our  honored  pa- 
rent, author  of  "  the  Overture"  were  "  demonstrably 
in  broad  contrast  with  those  now  held  by  Dr.  P."  The 
very  "  Acts  of  Synod"  which  he  has  adduced  to  over- 
throw our  statement  to  this  effect,  are  directly  against 
him,  when  they  are  fully  and  fairly  brought  out. 

And  so  when  Mason,  Annan,  and  Smith  say  in 
the  "  Overture,"  "  There  is  not  a  single  point  in 
doctrine  and  worship  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  for 
which  we  do  not  contend  " — which  of  course  includes 
that  Church's  sixty-seven  "human  compositions  "  called 
"  paraphrases,"  and  five  other  hymns,  several  of  them 
from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Watts—what  a  broad  contrast 
between  this  expression  of  the  "  fathers"  and  this 
from  Dr.  P.'s  Testimony,"  viz  :  "  In  making  use  of 
anything  else  (besides  the  Book  of  Psalms)  we  are 
doing  that  for  which  we  have  no  warrant,  and  against 
the  express  will  or  God."  In  the  broadest  con- 
trast with  this  narrow  exclusiveness,  the  "  fathers  "  of 
the  "  Overture  "  say,  "  We  are  extremely  sorry 
to  have  observed  a  disrelish,"  for  "  the  other  songs  of 
Scripture,"  as  well  as  "  for  the  Psalms  of  David  !" 
And  further,  these  "  fathers"  add— "We  do  not  mean 
to  say  that  "  hymns  of  human  composition  (including 
the  seventy-two  used  by  the  Church  of  Scotland) 
may  not  be  lawfully  used  in  any  case  whatever." 
This  is  the  teaching  of  « the  fathers  "  in  regard  to 
"  the  worship  of  God."  Yet  Dr.  P.  tries  to  make  the 
impression  that  they  held  his  notions  ! 

To  cap  the  climax  of  this  whole   argument,  look  for 


30  A  Defence. 

a  moment  at  the  practice  of  "  Father  Annan,"  author 
of  the  "  Overture."  In  his  pamphlet,  entitled  '*  The 
Ruling  Elder,"  p.  85,  he  tells  us :  "  The  congrega- 
tion in  Boston  (of  which  he  was  pastor)  were  dissatisfied 
with  the  -version  of  the  Psalms  used  in  the  churches," 
(Eouse.)  And  what  was  his  course  at  this  juncture? 
"Mr.  A.  (i.  e.  himself)  had  been  constrained  to  intro- 
duce the  version  of  "Tate  and  Brady."  We  have 
room  for  only  two  specimens  from  this  version,  refer- 
ring to  chapter  XI  for  other  illustrations  : 

PROSE  VERSION.  TATE  AND  BRADY. 

He    bowed  the    heavens  and    He  left  the  beauteous  realms   of 
came  down,  and  darkness  was  light,     * 

under  his  feet.  Whilst  heaven  bowed  down  its  aw- 

ful head; 
Beneath  his  feet  substantial  night 
Was  like  a  sable  carpet  spread. 

I  am  weak,  O  Lord,  heal  me,    Touched  by  thy  quickening  power 
for  my  bones  are  sore  vexed.  My  load  of  guilt  I  feel ; 

The  wounds    thy  spirit  hath  un- 
closed, 
0  let  that  spirit  heal. 

This  is  the  sort  of  "  sacred  songs  "  Father  Annan 
substituted  in  the  room  of  "  an  inspired  psalmody," 
"  a  true  and  literal  version  " — which  Dr.  P.  says  he 
sings  !  Tate  and  Brady  is  certainly  very  far  from  "  a 
faithful  translation,"  which  the  "Testimony"  de- 
mands. Dr.  P.  "  testifies  against  a  loose  paraphrase 
of  the  psalms."  But  Tate  and  Brady  in  many 
parts  of  the  psalms,  is  even  more  loose  than  Dr. 
Watts  !  If  Dr.  P.  had  been  a  member  of  the  A.  R. 
b'ynod  when  this  matter  was  referred  to,  he  would 
doubtless  have  used  u  his  pig  and  kid  "  argument,  and 
thundered  in  the  language  of  "Pressly  on  Psalmody:" 
From  the  throne  of  the  Eternal  the  declaration  comes 
forth  :  "  Whatsoever  I  command  you,  observe  to  do 
it-  thou  shalt  not  add  thereto  nor  diminish  from 


Fathers  on  Close  Communion,  31 

it." — Dent.  4  :  2.  But  what  was  the  heavy  censure 
imposed  upon  this  erring  "  father"  by  the  A.  R. 
Synod.     Here  it  is  in  his  own  words  : 

"  That  the  congregation  should,  if  Mr.  A.  contin- 
ued with  them,  admit  the  version  of  the  Psalms  and 
mode  of  singing  God's  praise  in  the  Church  of  Scot 
land." 

Observe,  not  a  word  of  rebuke  of  the  offending 
minister.  But  Dr.  P.  ventures  to  say  that  if  these 
statements  of  u  Father  Annan's  "  views  and  conduct 
are  correct,  he  must  "  have  been  trifling  with  the 
vows  which  he  had  assumed  at  his  ordination."  But 
this  also  is  a  desperate  resort.  We  will  show  pres- 
ently that  if  this  profane  trifling  be  chargeable  on 
"  Father  Annan,"  it  is  far  more  emphatically  fixed 
upon  a  certain  John  T.  Pressly,  who  in  1818  wrote  a 
remarkable  letter  to  Dr.  Mason,  in  which  he  scoffs  at 
certain  doctrines  and  usages  of  his  own  church  on 
these  very  subjects !  We  shall  then  see  who  was 
"trifling  with  the  vows  assumed  at  ordination  !"  The 
truth  is,  that  whilst  these  "  fathers"  of  the  Overture 
had  a  preference  for  certain  usages  in  Psalmody  and 
Communion,  their  doctrine  and  practice  were  in  broad 
contrast  with  those  of  Dr.  P.;  and  this  is  what  we  have 
proved  in  our  book  on  a  Close  Communion."  They 
well  knew  the  meaning  and  extent  of  their  "  ordina- 
tion vows  "  and  held  no  such  narrow  exclusiveness  as 
characterizes  the  notions  of  Dr.  P.  since  he  got  con- 
verted by  coming  from  South  Carolina  to  Pittsburgh. 
But  more  of  this  hereafter. 


S'l  A  Defence. 

CHAPTER  V. 

MORE  ABOUT    THE  FATHERS. 

'HEN  thc"fathers"who  composed  the"Overture" 
say,  "we  boldly  declare  there  is  not  a  single  point 
in  doctrine,  worship,  &c,  appertaining  to  the  Reformed 
Church  of  Scotland,  for  which  we  do  not  contend" — 
they  of  course  sanction,  as  before  shown,  the  sixty-seven 
"paraphrases"  then,  as  now,  in  use  in  that  Church. 
Whether  these  "fathers *J  were  aware  that  quite  a  num- 
ber of  those  "paraphrases"  were  composed  by  Dr.  Watts, 
we  cannot  say — but  they  certainly  knew  that  Addison 
wrote  several  of  the  five  hymns  whose  first  lines  we  have 
quoted,  and  which  they  thus  endorse  as  proper  parts  of 
"worship."  But  this  is  shocking  to  Dr  P/s  sensibili- 
ties. 

But  lest  it  should  be  thought  that  the  67  "paraphra- 
ses" are  such  true  and  literal  translations  of  portions  of 
Scripture  as  to  be  really  "inspired  compositions,"  we 
quote  the  following  from  "the  Reformed  Presbyterian," 
whose  editor  is  Thomas  Sproull,  D.  D.  He  says,  in 
the  No.  for  February,  "We  affirm  that  the  "imitations" 
of  Dr.  Watts  are  much  nearer  to  a  literal  version  of 
the  Psalms  of  David  than  the  (67)  paraphrases  are 
to  a  literal  version  of  the  "passages  (of  Scripture) 
alleged  to  be  paraphrased."  Dr.  Sproull  is  unquestion- 
ably right — and  here  again  Dr.  P/s  sensibilities  must 
receive  a  severe  shock.  Just  think  of  it !  The  Church 
of  Scotland  uses  in  praise  (and  the  "fathers"  approve 
that  use)  "paraphrases"  of  other  parts  of  Scripture  more 
looseihsm  Dr. Watts'  "Imitations" — "paraphrases," adds 
Dr.  S.,  "to  all  intents  and  purposes  uninspired  compo- 
sitions !"  Here  again  the  "fathers"  are  in  broad  con- 
trast with  Dr.  P.  and  the  "Testimony" — for  he  assures 
us  "we  have  no  authority  to  use  any  other  than  the 
(150)  Psalms."     This  is  one  of  "the  great  truths"  to 


More  about  the  Fathers.  33 

be  "enforced"  by  the  church.  And  further,  the  "Tes- 
timony"utterly  condemns  the  use  of  "loose  paraphrases," 
even  of  the  150  Psalms.  Dr.  P.  well  knew  that  all 
this  was  contained  in  the  "Overture"  of  the  "fathers" — 
but  he  passes  by  on  the  other  side. 

The  decisive  facts  thus  developed  show  what  ''our  fa- 
thers" meant  when  they  approved  of  "occasional  com- 
munion." "The  question,"  they  say,  "is  concerning  the 
regular,  orderly,  Protestant  Churches  who  have  clearly 
expressed  their  orthodoxy  in  their  Confessions  of  Faith, 
adhere  thereto  and  walk  in  the  order  of  the  Grospel,  al- 
though differing  from  us  in  some  external  modes  and 
forms."  Dr.  P.  holds  that  among  the  "external  modes 
and  forms  "  which  exclude  from  communion,  is  the 
use  of  such  "loose  paraphrases"  and  "hymns  of  human 
composition"  as  the  Church  of  Scotland  authorizes.  Of 
course  he  must  say,  "Stand  back — I  am  holier  than 
thou  I"  You  Scotchmen  reject  one  of  the  "great  doc. 
trines  of  our  creed" — ergo,  we  cannot  commune  with 
you.  We  dare  not  offer  to  Grod  a  "pig  instead  of  a 
kid." 

But  Dr.  P|quotes  with  great  confidence  "the  terms 
of  stated  fellowship"  from  "the  Overture."  The  first 
two  are  the  ones  which  bear  on  this  discussion,  viz ; 
1.  "  That  the  profession  of  the  faith  in  Christ  in  said 
church  be  full  and  pure.  2.  That  her  worship  be  Scrip- 
tural, all  Christ's  ordinances  being  purely  administered." 
"  A  full  and  pure  profession."  But  do  not  the  Cove- 
nanters make  a  "profession"  at  least  as  pure  as  the 
Church  of  Scotland  ?  Do  not  the  Old  School  profess 
the  faith  in  Christ,  by  adopting  "  the  Westminster 
Standards?"  Yet  Dr.  P.  says  of  both  churches,  "Stand 
back!"  As  to  the  second  term,  "a  Scriptural  worship :" 
Are  the  Covenanters  guilty  of  any  thing  worse  than  sing- 
ing the  67  "  paraphrases"  and  five  hymns  of  Watts,  Ad- 
dison, and  others  ?     Do  the  "Presbyterians  profane  Di- 


34  A  Defence. 

vine  worship  more  than  our  Scottish  fathers"  in  this  re- 
spect? The  whole  question  turns  on  this — what  did 
"Father  Annan"  and  the  others  mean  by  "a  pure  pro- 
fession, "  and  ''Scriptural  worship  V"  If  Dr.  P/s  inter- 
pretation be  the  true  one,  "Father  Annan,"  who  was 
ordained  in  Scotland,  must  have  regarded  the  "worship" 
of  that  church,  with  her  "paraphrases"  and  hymns,  as 
so  impure  that  he  could  not  statedly  commune  with 
her  !  But  he  says  the  direct  contrary  in  the  Overture. 
He  knew  what  he  was  doing  when  he  wrote,  "We  do 
not  mean  to  say  that  hymns  of  human  composition  may 
not  be  lawfully  used  (in  "religious  worship")  in  any 
case  whatever."  "  We  agree  with  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land." So  when  the  "  Fathers  "  add,  "  that  in  admit- 
ting a  new  member  to  communion  " — "it  is  requisite 
that  he  have  a  proper  degree  of  knowledge,  be  sound 
in  the  faith,  &c." — the  question  is,  what  is  "  a  proper 
degree  of  knowldege?"  Dr.  P.  answers — "In  her  Con- 
fession of  Faith"  (including  33  chapters,  160  sections, 
the  Catechisms,  and  the  18  articles  of  the  "Testimony") 
"the  church  has  declared  what  she  believes  to  be  com- 
prehended in  a  Scriptural  profession ;"  and  when  the 
"  Testimony"  adds  that  "  in  making  use  of  anything 
else  than  the  (150)  Psalms,  we  are  doing  that  for 
which  we  have  no  warrant  and  against  the  express  will 
of  God" — it  is  demonstrated  that  the  "Fathers"  of 
the  Overture  were  not  in  concord  with  these  views,  and 
that  Dr.  P.  has  departed  from  their  "  full  and  pure 
faith  and  Scriptural  worship."  And  so  of  the  phrase 
"  sound  in  the  faith" — Dr.  P.  and  the  "Testimony" 
include  soundness  in  the  belief  that  it  is  a  sin  to  sing 
anything  in  worship  but  the  150  Psalms.  But  the 
"Fathers"  of  the  "Overture"  teach  no  such  narrow 
excludveness.  They  say  they  contend  for  every  point 
of"  doctrine  and  worship"  held,  and  taught  by  "the 
Reformed  Church  of  Scotland,"  including  the  67  "  par- 


More  about  the  Fathers.  35 

aphrases  "  and  five  hymns,  all  "  human  compositions." 
But  this  shocks  Dr.  P.'s  sensibilities  most  rudely. 

These  statements  prepare  us  to  examine  the  "  Act  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,"  pass- 
ed in  1711,  and  cited  in  "  Close  Communion,"  [p.  24), 
"  concerning  the  receiving  of  strangers  into  church 
communion  and  baptizing  their  children."  These 
"strangers"  are  described  as  u educated  in  Protestant 
Churches,  and  having  come  to  reside  in  this  country," 
*.  e.,  Scotland.  It  supposes  them  to  "  incline  to  join  in 
communion  with  this  church."  Ministers  are  then 
enjoined  to  show  all  tenderness  toward  them  when  they 
come  to  desire  the  benefit  of  sealing  ordinances.  And 
if  free  from  scandal  and  professing  their  faith  in  Christ 
and  obedience  to  him,  their  children  are  to  be  baptized 
"upon  the  parents  engaging  to  educate  them  in  the  fear 
of  God,  and  the  knowledge  of  the  principles  of  the  He- 
formed  Protestant  religion." 

Observe:  these  "  strangers"  are  required  to  educate 
their  children  in  "the  principles  of  the  Reformed  Pro- 
testant religion  " — not  in  the  peculiarities  of  doctrine 
and  worship  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  The  Act  was 
passed,  as  Dr.  Mason  has  well  observed,  "  for  receiving 
strangers  into  communion,  they  continuing  strangers, 
and  not  accounting  themselves  plenary  members  of  that 
church." 

Dr.  P.  however,  in  opposition  to  Dr.  Mason,  tells  us, 
this  Act  merely  means  that  ministers  should  receive  ten- 
derly such  "  strangers"  to  sealing  ordinances,  they  hav- 
ing come  from  other  Protestant  churches  "  to  reside 
permanently"  in  Scotland.  But  he  thus  supposes  the 
General  Assembly  to  stultify  itself.  Where  was  the 
necessity  of  any  such  special  Act,  if  that  be  its  mean- 
ing ?  There  was  no  more  need  for  such  an  Act  than 
for  a  similar  one  for  receiving  their  own  children  !  Does 
Dr.  P.  require  any  Act  of  the  U.  P.  Assembly  to  author- 


36  A  Defence. 

ize  him  to  "receive  tenderjy"  to  sealing  ordinances 
the  Scotch  and  Irish  who  come  to  settle  in  this  coun- 
try if  they  bring  good  credentials — "  being  free  of  scan- 
dal and  professing  their  faith  in  Christ  and  obedience 
to  him?"  The  Scottish  Assembly  must  have  thought 
their  ministers  a  set  of  "  silly  sheep"  if  they  imagined 
they  had  need  of  a  special  "  Act M  to  direct  them  in  so 
very  plain  a  matter. 

Observe,  too,  that  the  persons  indicated  are  those  "ed- 
ucated in  other  Protestant  churches  " — not  exclusively 
Calvinistic  churches.  In  1711,  when  this  Act  was 
passed,  Europe  contained  many  large  Lutheran  churches 
and  these  are  included  in  the  very  terms  of  the 
Act,  as  "  of  the  Reformed  Protestant  Religion."  In 
a  word,  as  Dr.  Mason  states  it,  u  a  member  of  any  Re- 
formed church  in  the  world,  not  acting  unworthy  of  his 
profession,  was  entitled  upon  that  ground  to  an  equal 
participation  with  her  own  members  in  the  sealing  or- 
dinances of  the  Church  of  Scotland."  Thus  Dr.  P.'s 
notions  about  the  necessity  of  u  enforcing  his  creed,  or  a 
summary  of  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Scriptures,"  in- 
cluding his  doctrine  of  exclusive  psalmody,  were  repu- 
diated by  the  Church  of  Scotland.  We  shall  show, 
when  we  come  to  speak  of  the  views  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly  [1643],  that  Dr.  David  R.  Kerr  admits 
that  that  Assembly  "  threw  open  their  communion"  to 
those  called  "  Lutheran  Churches,"  who  were  not  Cal- 
vinistic in  doctrine,  and  were  hymn- singers  in  worship. 
And  if  this  was  true  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  it 
was  equally  true  of  the  Church  of  Scotland. 

To  crown  this  whole  argument  in  regard  to  the  views 
of  the  "  fathers  " — what  are  the  present  views  of  the 
Churches  of  Scotland  and  Ireland  ?  Let  Dr.  R.  D. 
Harper,  a  prominent  minister  of  the  U.  P.  Church, 
give  the  answer.  Hear  him :  "  None  of  these 
Churches  are  identified  with  us  in  principle  or  practice 


More  about  the  Fathers.  37 

on  the  subject  of  Communion,  or  Secret  Societies  or 
Covenanting."  il  Jn  all  the  congregations  in  which  we 
have  worshipped,  both  in  Scotland  and  Ireland,  with 
the  single  exception  of  Dr.  Cook's,  of  Belfast,  the  (67) 
"  paraphrases "  and  (5)  hymns  have  been  sung." 
This  is  the  evidence  of  an  eye-witness.  Dr.  P.  thinks 
that  in  1711  the  Scottish  Assembly  held  his  "  Close 
Communion "  views.  Of  course  that  Church  must 
have  sadly  apostatized  before  she  could  answer  to  Dr. 
Harper's  description  of  her  present  condition.  Is  that 
a  likely  story  ? 

Dr.  P.  also  expressly  admits  it  to  be  "  true,"  "  that 
in  1711  the  Church  of  Scotland  required  nothing  as  a 
term  of  communion  with  her  but  what  was  common 
to  the  principles  of  the  Reformed  Religion;  nor  was 
it  necesrarf,  he  adds,  to  require  anything  more,  since, 
according  to  Father  Annan,  the  faith  held  by  all  the  Re- 
formed Protestant  Churches  was  the  same."  In- 
deed !  "  Father  Annan  "  makes  this  remark  of  the 
period  of  "the  Reformation  from  spiritual  Babylon," 
and  Dr.  P.  adopts  and  applies  it  to  the  period  of  1711 ! 
Of  course  he  teaches  that  the  doctrinal  belief  of  the 
Calvinistic  and  Lutheran  Churches  of  1711  was  the 
same  as  those  of  the  16th  Century.  Thus  he  flound- 
ers on  from  point  to  point  in  his  review.  He  quotes 
what  "  Father  Annan "  said  of  1517,  to  prove  the 
same  thing  of  1711  !  A  mistake  of  only  two  cen- 
turies ! 

Of  the  same  sort  of  loose  logic  is  Dr.  P.'s  quotation 
of  an  act  of  the  A.  R.  Synod  in  1798,  in  whi6h  there 
is  required  of  persons  desiring  membership  u,  an  ap- 
probation of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Larger  and 
Shorter  Catechisms,  &c."  Dr.  P.  comments  thus : 
"  At  [this  time  Father  A.nnan  was  a  prominent 
member  of  this  Church."  But  Dr.  P.  forgets  to  add, 
that  "  Father  A."  was  also  a  member  of  the  same  body 


38  A  Defence. 

in  1811 — 1816,  when  only  one  vote,  besides  the  mover 
and  seconder,  could  be  got  in  favor  of  a  resolution  to 
censure  Drs.  Mason,  Matthews,  and  Clark  for  joining 
in  the  Lord's  Supper  with  the  Presbyterian  Churches 
of  New  York  !  This  indicates  the  more  mature  judg- 
ment of  that  honored  "  Father,"  as  well  as  of  the 
whole  Synod,  with  three  exceptions.  It  was  about 
this  period,  as  we  are  told  by  the  late  Dr.  Dickey,  that 
"  Father  A."  expressed  his  desire  for  a  union  with  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  So 
evident  is  it  that  the  tl  fathers  "  of  the  Overture  were 
far  removed  from  the  narrow  exclusiveness  of  Dr.  P. 

But  we  have  Dr.  P.'s  own  testimony  in  regard  to  the 
large  and  liberal  views  of  "  the  fathers  "  of  that  pe- 
riod. In  1818  he  wrote  a  letter  to  Rev.  Dr.  Mason,  in 
which  he  pronounces  the  question  "  whether  it  is 
scriptural  to  extend  our  Christian  fellowship  beyond 
the  limits  of  our  own  Church/'  "  a  bone  of  contention 
often  picked,"  and  represents  the  affirmative  as  "  one 
of  the  traditions  of  the  elders !"  Of  the  same  tradi- 
tional sort  he  declares  the  question,  "  whether  it  is 
right  to  use  any  other  than  a  literal  version  of  David's 
Psalms  in  praise  to  God  !"  A  little  further  on  in  this 
important  epistle,  speaking  of  his  having  commenced 
"  an  exposition  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  "  he 
says  :  "This  [the  unity  of  the  Church]  being  admit- 
ted, the  doctrine  of  Catholic  Communion  seemed  to 
be  an  irresistible  consequence,  and  therefore  I  thought 
it  my  duty  to  utter  it."  So  positive,  indeed,  was  he 
of  the  correctness  of  his  views  that  he  represents  those 
in  his  charge  who  differed  with  him,  as  not  having 
"  searched  the  Scriptures,  and,  therefore,  not  thinking 
rationally  on  these  subjects." 

Now  we  would  not  wish  to  assert  that  the  Rev.  J.  T. 
Pressly,  to  use  his  own  language,  "was  thus  trifling 
with  the  solemn  vows  assumed  at  his  ordination."     He 


More  about  the  Fathers,  39 

was  at  this  time  a  minister  of  the  very  Church  which 
he  represents  as  binding  her  candidates  by  solemn 
vows  to  teach  the  directly  opposite  of  the  views  which 
he  thus  boldly  declares.  He  now,  indeed,  assures  us 
the  "  fathers  did  not  profess  the  doctrine  of  Catholic 
Communion."  "  As  honest  men/'  he  adds,  "it  is  to 
be  supposed  their  practice  was  in  accordance  with  their 
principles."  We  leave  him  to  apply  this  doctrine  to 
his  own  case  as  thus  developed.  Our  object  is  to  show 
that  in  1818  Dr.  P.  was  so  well  satisfied  that  the 
"fathers"  favored  "Catholic  Communion,"  that  he 
ventures  to  speak  sneeringly  of  the  opposite  narrow 
view  as  belonging  to  those  who  did  not  think  ration- 
ally on  the  subject?"  He  knew  very  well  at  that 
period  that  he  had  nothing  to  fear  from  "  Father  An- 
nan," Dr.  Mason,  and  others,  while  he  was  thus  scoff- 
ing at  the  doctrines  of  Close  Communion,  exclusive 
psalmody,  &c. 

But  enough.  We  think  we  have  demonstrated  that 
the  "  fathers "  held  sentiments  much  more  nearly  al- 
lied to  those  of  the  Old  School  Presbyterians,  than  to 
the  rigid,  narrow  views  of  Dr.  P.  and  the  "  Testi- 
mony." • 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE    ASSOCIATE    FATHERS— THE    DIKECT    AR- 
GUMENT— THE  EXAMPLE   OF  OUR  LORD. 

IHE  discussion  of  the  views  of  the  "  Fathers  "  has 
thus  far  been  confined  to  those  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church,  which  united  with  the  Associate  Sy- 
nod to  form  the  U.  P.  Body.  We  turn  now  to  the 
u  Fathers  "  of  the  Associate  Synod,  as  their  doctrines 
and    practice  are  exhibited  on   pages  48 — 55  of  our 


40  A  Defence. 

former  book,  u  Close  Communion;"  and  as  Dr.  P.  has 
not  seen  fit  to  notice  this  part  of  the  argument,  we 
shall  be  very  brief,  assuming  that  his  il  silence  gives 
consent." 

The  Testimony  of  the  U.  P.  Church  pronounces 
"  slaveholding  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  God  ;  "  and 
makes  an  adherence  to  this  view  "  a  term  of  commu- 
nion." But  the  Evangelical  Repository,  for  Jan.,  1848, 
tells  us  that  when  the  Associate  Synod,  in  1831, 
framed  an  act  of  this  sort,  six  of  the  "  Fathers  "  re- 
corded their  solemn  protest,  u  of  the  nature  of  an 
oath,"  against  it.  Their  names  are  Andrew  Herron, 
James  Ramsey,  James  Adams,  A.  Anderson,  Thomas 
Allison  and  W.  M.  McElwee.  These  fathers  "  protest" 
against  the  act  as  "  without  a  warrant  in  the  word  of 
God,  "  harsh  and  cruel  toward  the  negroes,"  "  highly 
unjust  and  injurious,  &c."  Yet  the  Synod  did  not  break 
off  fellowship  with  these  six  "fathers."  Surely  this 
was  at  least  as  worthy  a  ground  of  interrupting  commu- 
nion with  them,  as  the  use  of  other  songs  of  praise 
than  the  150  Psalms.  Yet  one  of  these  protestors  was 
for  many  years  Professor  of  Theology,  another  was 
Clerk  of  Synod,  and  in  1848  another  had  been  recently 
chosen  Professor  of  Theology. 

Again,  in  1845  the  Associate  Synod  declared  against* 
"  voting  for  men  of  immoral  character."  The  Evan- 
gelical Repository  says,  "  both  ministers  and  people 
utterly  disregarded  the  act,  by  voting  for  profane  swear- 
ers, Sabbath-breakers,  murderers,  whoremongers,  &c." 
Yet  here  was  no  breaking  off  communion  with  these  sin- 
ners. But  let  one  of  the  same  persons  venture  to  sing 
one  of  Watts'  psalms — then  comes  the  thunder  of  ex- 
communication !  The  same  authority  assures  us  of  the 
existence  in  that  body  of  the  wide-spread  crimes  of 
manufacturing  and  retailing  as  a  beverage  "  liquid 
poison,"  thus  murdering  both  soul  and  body.     But  all 


The  Direct  Argument  41 

that  was  not  sufficient  to  interrupt  communion.  These 
facts  demonstrate  that  the  doctrine  of  "  close  commu- 
nion/' as  taught  in  the  Associate  Synod,  was  found  to 
be  impracticable,  and  was  laid  aside  at  pleasure.  It 
will  be  shown  hereafter  that  the  same  inconsistency 
prevails  extensively  in  the  United  Church. 

Having  now  arrived  at  correct  views  of  the  authority 
of  the  "  fathers/'  we  proceed  to  examine  the  method 
in  which  Dr.  P.  meets  the  direct  arguments  of  our 
book  against  close  communion. 

ARGUMENT  I. 

The  theory  of  Communion  taught  by  Dr.  P.,  and  the 
Testimony,  is  in  its  very  terms  impracticable.  Think 
of  the  "lad3  and  lasses,"  to  use  a  Scotch  phrase,  of 
from  ten  to  sixteen  years,  being  required  to  adopt,  of 
course  intelligently,  the  several  thousand  doctrinal  and 
moral  propositions  of  the  Confession,  Catechisms,  and 
"  Testimony/'  before  they  can  be  received  to  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper — required  to  adopt  the  West- 
minster Confession,  that  monument  of  genius  and 
learning,  a  work  which  occupied  for  years  the  care  and 
study  of  a  body  of  divines  second  to  none  in  the  world — 
''which  has  condensed  the  literature  and  labor  of  their 
lives,  and  covers  the  whole  ground  of  didactic  and  po- 
lemic theology."  Dr.  Mason  tells  us  that  the  Associate 
Reformed  Church  of  his  day  did  not  even  pretend  to 
reduce  to  practice  this  their  own  theory  of  communion. 
"They  do  not,"  he  says  emphatically  '^ot  a  man  of 
them." 

Dr.  P.  evidently  feels  the  pinch  of  this  reasoning, 
and  he  attempts  to  escape  by  virtually  denying  his 
own  theory,  thus :  "If  his  (the  applicant's)  difficulty 
consists  in  his  acknowledged  want  of  ability  to  fully 
comprehend  them  (i.  e.  the  several  thousand  proposi- 


42  A  Defence, 

tions  of  the  Confession),  while  there  is  no  disposition 
to  oppose  or  reject  them,  &c."  And  again,  "  the  ques- 
tion is  with  respect  to  those  who  reject  the  truth,  and 
avow  their  opposition  to  it,  &c."     But  this  is  simply  to 
say  that  whenever  it  is  found  convenient,  the  "  close 
communion  "  theory  of  himself  and  the  "  Testimony" 
may  be  thrown  overboard.     "  If  they  are  professors  at 
all/'  says  the  Testimony,   "  they  are  professors  of  all 
its  (the  Church's)  principles."     "  An  adherence  to 
the  Westminster  Standards,  and  to  the  Declarations  of 
the  Testimony,  will  be  required  of  those  seeking 
communion  with  us."     If  this  language  does  not  de- 
mand an  open  approval  of  the  whole  of  the  Confession, 
the  Catechisms,  and  the  Testimony,  no  language  could 
teach  that  theory.     But  see  how  Dr.  P.  softens  these 
rigid  terms — u  if  there  is  no  disposition  to  oppose  or 
reject,   &c."     Thus   he  virtually   abandons    his   own 
theory   as  stated  on   p.    47    of  his  book,  viz :  "  The 
Church  has  her  creed,  a  summary  of  the  faith  once  de- 
livered to  the  Saints  ;"  "  by  his  professed  approbation 
of  this  form  of  sound  words,  the  person  makes  such  a 
profession  as  the  Church  has  a  right  to  demand,  &c." 
But  see  how,  under  pressure  of  logic,  he  falls  from  the 
grace  of  "  professed  approbation,"  and  says  it  means 
that  there  must  be  no  "avowed  opposition"  to  the  Con- 
fession, &c.     "  The  Church,"  according  to  this  logic,- 
M  has  a  right  to  demand  professed  approbation,"  but 
that  only  means  that  she  may  abandon  this  *'  right "  at 
her  pleasure,  and  substitute  "  no  avowed  opposition  !" 
This  inconsistency  in  theory  leads,  as  will  be  shown 
hereafter,  to  very  extensive  inconsistencies  in  practice. 
"For  all  practical  purposes,"says  Dr.  P.  "a  credible  pro- 
fession is  a  profession  of  faith  in  every  doctrine  reveal- 
ed in  the  Bible."  But  it  will  be  shown  that  practically 
Dr.  P.  himself  has  utterly  abandoned  this  requirement 
of  "a  credible  profession,"  even  as  he  understands  what 
is  u  revealed  in  the  Bible." 


The  Direct  Argument.  43 

ARGUMENT  II. 

The  second  direct  argument  against  "Close  Commu- 
nion" in  our  book,  is  derived  from  the  example  of  our 
Blessed  Lord  in  the  original  institution  of  the  Supper. 

"Where  men  are  not  agreed  in  relation  to  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  says  Dr.  P.,  "they  cannot 
hold  communion  in  the  profession  of  the  truth." 
"  Those  who  refuse  adherence  to  her  profession" — [viz : 
the  whole  Westminster  Standards]  "to  receive  them  in- 
to her  fellowship  would  be  unfaithfulness  to  Christ, 
&c." 

But  were  there  any  such  minute  and  specific  terms 
enforced  at  the  first  Supper,  where  our  Divine  Master 
officiated  ? 

1.  The  first  obvious  point  is,  that  we  have  no  evi- 
dence that  the  disciples  had  received  christian  baptism. 
Jesus  was  baptized  by  John ;  and  the  probability  is  that 
the  Twelve  received  the  same  rite,  though  we  have  no 
record  of  it.  "  Christian  baptism"  was  not  yet  insti- 
tuted. Thus  Dr.  P.  in  his  book  on  Baptism,  says  that 
"  having  died  for  our  sin  and  risen,  our  Lord  invested 
his  apostles  with  a  commission  to  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them,  &c."  "This  institution,"  he  adds,  "de- 
rives its  origin  from  the  appointment  of  Christ."  Dr. 
Dick  says,  "John's  baptism  was  designed  to  serve  a  tem- 
porary purpose" — "it  did  not  properly  belong  to  the 
Christian  dispensation,  but  was  preparatory  to  it." 
John  Brown,  of  Haddington,  says,  "our  Saviour,  and  per- 
haps most  of  his  apostles,  had  no  other  but  the  baptism 
of  John."  "It  seems  unquestionable,"  adds  Dick, 
"that  John's  baptism  and  that  of  Christ  were  different 
ordinances."  Scott  the  Commentator  takes  the  same 
view;  "It  was  introductory — not  the  same  with  Christ's 
baptism,  but  rather  for  tho  time  being."  "We  cannot 
suppose  that  Jesus  was  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 


A  Defence. 

Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost."  So  "the  fathers"  of 
the  Overture — "John's  baptism  was  only  temporary." 
Here  then  is  a  fact  for  "Close  Communionists"  to  pon- 
der. Dr.  P.  concedes  that  "  Christian  baptism  "  was 
not  yet  instituted  when  the  Lord's  Supper  was  adminis- 
tered by  Christ  himself!  Of  course  the  Eleven  had  not 
received  it.  Yet  they  were  admitted  by  the  "  Great 
Teacher"  to  the  Sasred  Supper.  But  what  has  Dr.  P. 
to  say  to  this  admitted  fact?  Nothing  !  He  dare  not 
deny  his  own  admission — but  he  alleges  that  it  proves 
too  much  for  the  Presbyterian  doctrine.  We  will  at- 
tend to  that  presently. 

2.  The  next  point  is,  that  the  disciples  "  had  very 
incorrect  views  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ, — and 
of  the  way  of  salvation  by  his  sufferings  and  death."  As 
to  his  person,  did  they  recognize  him  as  a  Divine  Being? 
We  think  not,  for  the  following  reasons.  Admitting 
that  Peter  calls  him  "  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God"— in  Mark  8:29,  it  reads,  "Thou  art  the 
Christ,"  nothing  more — This  may  mean,  "Thou  art  the 
long  predicted  and  prayed  for  Messiah,  come  'tore- 
deem  Israel/  our  national  Deliverer."  The  phrase 
"  Son  of  God,"  does  not  necessarily  imply  divinity,  for 
Adam  is  called  "the  Son  of  God." 

Again  :  It  is  very  significant,  that  concerning  the  dis- 
ciples, after  Jesus  had  risen,  we  are  expressly  told  that 
"  they  knew  not  the  Scriptures — that  He  must  rise  again 
from  the  dead." — John  20 ;  9.  Now  is  it  a  likely  story 
that  they  were  so  ignorant  and  stupid  as  to  suppose  that 
one  whom  they  regarded  as  a  divine  being  could  be 
confined  to  the  grave  !  So  we  read  in  several  places 
thus :  "When  they  heard  that  he  was  alive,  they  be- 
lieved not."  "  Jesus  appeared  unto  them  and  upbraided 
them  because  they  believed  not  them  which  had  seen 
him  after  he  was  risen."  So  when  he  appeared  unto 
them  walking  on  the  sea,  "they  were  terrified  and  af- 


The  Direct  Argument.  4 


cr 


frighted,  and  supposed  they  had  seen  a  spirit/'  "  Then 
(just  before  his  ascension  to  Heaven  )  opened  he  their 
understanding,  that  they  might  understand  the  Scrip- 
tures." As  to  unbelieving  Thomas,  who  was  one  of 
the  original  Oommunionists,  we  know  that  he  could 
hardly  be  persuaded  at  all  of  Christ's  resurrection.  But 
if  Dr.  P.  be  right,  their  notions  of  an  Omnipotent 
Saviour  must  have  been  singular  enough — for  they  could 
not  be  persuaded  that  he  had  power  over  death  and 
the  grave  !  But,  reasons  Dr.  P.,  the  Saviour  pronounced 
Peter  "  blessed,"  because  he  had  said,  'Thou  art  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  &c,  Yes,  and  just  four 
verses  farther  on,  Jesus  says  to  Peter,  "Get  thee  behind 
me,  Satan ;  for  thou  savorest  not  the  things  that  be  of 
God,  but  those  that  be  of  men."  Doubtless  Peter  was 
"blessed"  in  being  so  far  enlightened  by  "the  Father" 
as  to  receive  Jesus  as  the  true  Messiah  long  predicted  by 
the  Prophets,  in  opposition  to  the  unbelief  of  the  Jew- 
ish nation  generally.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  as  yet 
he  had  correct  views  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  The 
subsequent  history  of  himself  and  the  others  proves  just 
the  reverse. 

Look  next  at  the  great  ignorance  and  error  of  those 
original  communicants,  in  regard  to  the  sacrificial  and 
mediatorial  work  of  Christ. 

This  is  a  delicate  point,  and  Dr.  P.  manages  to  slip 
over  it  very  adroitly.  He  does  not  attempt  to  deny  our 
statement — that  would  be  a  serious  undertaking.  In 
commenting  on  the  very  passage  in  which  Dr.  P.  sup- 
poses Peter  to  have  avowed  his  belief  in  Christ's  Divine 
nature,  Dr.  Scott  says:  "Peter  was  at  this  time  greatly 
ignorant  of  many  evangelical  truths,  and  even  preju- 
diced against  them  He  did  not  understand  the  plan 
of  Redemption  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  He  had  a  varie- 
ty of  carnal  and  vain  expectations,  &c."  In  proof,  we 
find  that  a  few  verses  further  on,  when  Christ  had 
told  his  disciples  that  "he  must  be  killed  at  Jerusa- 


46  A  Defence. 

lem  and  be  raised  the  third  day,"  this  same  Peter 
began  to  rebuke  him,  saying,  "Be  it  far  from  thee, 
Lord,  this  shall  not  be  unto  thee."  "It  is  probable," 
says  Scott,  "that  the  Apostles  were  at  this  time  fully 
expecting  their  Lord  appearing  in  external  glory  as  the 
King  of  Israel,  but  on  the  contrary,  he  showed  them 
that  he  must  be  put  to  death." 

So  when  commenting  on  Luke.  24  :  13 — 31,  "0 
fools,  &c,"  Scott  says,  "They  appeared  devoid  of  un- 
derstanding, and  incapable  of  forming  a  proper  judg- 
ment in  this  great  concern."  "Our  Lord,"  he  says 
again,  "had  spoken  of  his  sufferings,  death  and  resur- 
rection, but  the  Apostles  were  too  blind  by  carnal 
prejudices  to  understand  his  meaning."  "They  had 
confidently  believed  him,"  adds  Scott,  "  to  be  the 
promised  Messiah."  "But  events  had  exceedingly 
distressed  and  perplexed  them  j  for  they  could  not  see 
how  his  crucifixion  could  consort  with  his  redeeming 
his  people." 

Now  observe  :  these  things  are  said  of  these  origi- 
nal communicants,  and  that,  too,  long  after  the  first 
supper  had  been  celebrated.  They  prove  also,  if 
words  have  any  meaning,  that  "the  disciples"  as  our 
book  declares,  "had  at  the  time  of  the  first  supper 
very  incorrect  views  of  the  work  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
way  of  salvation  through  his  death."  Contrast  all 
this  with  Dr.  P/s  terms  of  communion,  the  Confes- 
sion and  Testimony,  the  several  thousand  truths  of  the 
former,  and  the  mixture  of  truth  and  untruth  in  the 
latter.  Surely  the  example  of  our  Lord  does  not  give 
the  least  countenance  to  any  such  theory  of  com- 
munion 

A  third  point,  illustrating  the  qualifications  required 
by  the  eleven  original  communicants,  is  this:  "The 
disciples  had  "notions  of  the  nature  of  Christ's  king- 
dom  which   were   extremely  contrary  to   the  truth." 


The  Direct  Argument.  47 

They  were  in  great  darkness  on  the  subject  of 
Christ's  spiritual  mission  and  kingdom,  exhibiting  a 
degree  of  ignorance  on  such  topics  as  these,  which 
would  be  unbecoming  in  an  ordinary  member  of  almost 
any  evangelical  church  of  the  present  day. 

They  clung  to  the  old  Jewish  prejuiices,  that  Mes- 
siah's mission  was  to  re  establish  "the  throne  of  David," 
literally  to  restore  the  golden  age  of  Solomon,  &c. 
Now  what  has  Dr.  P.  to  say  to  this  fact,  which  the 
veriest  sciolist  is  familiar  with  ?  He  dare  not  deny 
it,  but  lifting  his  hands  in  holy  horror,  he  exclaims, 
"Can  you  believe  that  our  Lord  welcomed  to  his  holy 
table  men  of  the  character  described  ?"  And  he  makes 
a  flourish  about  "reverence  for  the  character  of  our 
Blessed  Saviour,  &c."  An  easy  way  to  escape  the 
pinch  and  pressure  of  an  unmanageable  argument.  "We 
think  we  show  our  "reverence"  for  our  Lord  best 
when  we  accept  the  plain  and  obvious  facts  of  his  his- 
tory without  vain  jangling  or  doubtful  disputation 

These  several  points,  we  trust,  have  been  firmly  es- 
tablished, viz :  The  eleven  disciples  who  partook  of 
the  first  supper  had  not  received  Christian  baptism — 
did  not  yet  recognize  the  divinity  of  their  Master,  and 
were  in  great  ignorance  as  to  his  sacrificial  work  and 
the  way  of  salvation  by  his  sufferings  and  death  : 
they  were  profoundly  in  the  dark  in  regard  to  the 
spiritual  nature  of  his  mission  and  kingdom.  Dr.  P. 
may  exclaim,  "presumptuously  affirmed,  &c."  But 
there  stand  the  historic  facts,  not  to  be  ignored  by 
passion  and  prejudice. 

The  reviewer  displays  considerable  controversial 
dexterity  in  escaping  from  these  logical  toils.  He 
makes  a  great  ado  in  regard  to  the  fact  that  the  origi- 
nal communicants  did  not  recognize  "the  divinity  of 
their  Lord  f  then  amid  the  dust  which  he  manages  to 
stir  up  and  collect  around  this   single  point,  he  very 


48  A  Defence. 

quietly  slips  away  from  the  others,  viz  :  "That  the 
Eleven  were  without  Christian  baptism,  and  were  in 
great  ignorance  of  the  nature  and  method  of  the 
atonement,  the  way  of  salvation,  and  of  Christ's  spirit- 
ual mission  and  kingdom."  But  if  we  were  to  leave 
out  of  view  entirely  the  point  which  he  chiefly  disputes, 
viz:  "ignorance  of  Chist's  divine  nature/'  the  other  points 
are  not  at  all  affected  thereby.  The  veriest  novice  in 
theology  knows  that  the  eleven  original  communicants 
were  greatly  in  the  dark  concerning  Messiah's  sacri- 
ficial work,  and  the  spirituality  of  his  kingdom.  But 
Dr.  P.  seems  to  think  that  the  less  said  on  these  topics 
the  better,  so  he  says  nothing,  or  nothing  to  the  purpose. 

For  that's  the  only  way, 

"When  people  nothing  have  to  say. 

To  evade,  in  some  measure,  the  condemnation  which 
these  [facts  pronounce  upon  his  "close  communion" 
theory,  the  reviewer  argues  that  they  equally  con- 
demn the  Presbyterian  doctrine;  for  he  tells  us,  if 
Christ  designed  "to  teach  the  church  by  his  example, 
what  are  the  proper  qualifications"  to  be  required  of 
intending  communicants ;  why  not  now  admit  persons 
who  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ  ?  &c,  &c.  The 
answer  is  obvious.  Our  Lord  was  omniscient,  we  are 
not.  He  could  try  the  heart.  He  so  arranged  in  his 
providence,  that  the  traitor  Judas  absented  himself 
from  the  communion  table — but  knowing  that  the 
Eleven  possessed  "the  root  of  the  matter,"  or  were 
"born  of  the  Spirit,"  he  received  them  notwith- 
standing their^ignorance  and  errors,  and  in  this  respect, 
the  Presbyterian  Church  aims  to  copy  the  example  of 
our  Lord.  We  seek  to  ascertain,  as  far  as  we  can, 
whether  the  applicant  possesses  the  great  moral  charac- 
teristics of  a  saving  faith  and  true  repentance — and 
for  this  purpose  we  examine  on  the  great  essentials  to 
salvation,  as  their  marks  are  laid  down  in  the  Scrip- 


The  Direct  Argument.  49 

tures  for  the  use  of  those  who  are  not  able  to  try  the 
hearts  of  men.  Having  arrived  at  these  evidences  of 
real  piety,  like  our  Blessed  Lord,  we  bid  sueh  hopeful 
disciples  welcome,  without  requiring  "adherence"  to 
the  33  chapters  of  the  Confession,  Larger  and  Shorter 
Catechisms,  and  eighteen  ''declarations"  of  a  "  testi- 
mony." A  very  little  discrimination  is  needful  to 
decide  which  of  these  theories  of  communion  most 
nearly  copies  the  example  of  our  Lord. 

The  reviewer  intimates,  though  apparently  afraid  to 
positively  affirm,  that  the  example  of  Christ  is  of  no 
obligation  in  this  case.  We  have  said,  in  "Close  Com- 
munion tested,"  that  "his  example  is  highly  instructive 
in  principle."  "But  for  reasons  stated,  it  does  not  re- 
quire our  church  officials  to  admit  persons  to  com- 
munion who  are  so  greatly  in  error  as  the  disciples." 
Just  as  we  do  not  press  the  example  of  Christ  at  Cana, 
as  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  use  of  wine  as  a  beverage, 
nor  use  his  example  as  "the  Great  Teacher,"  in  order 
to  sanction  such  terrible  appeals  as  he  uttered  when 
we  preach  the  Gospel — such  as  "  ye  serpents,  ye 
generation  of  vipers;"  "ye  hypocrites,"  &c.  Yet  in 
all  these  cases  the  pattern  of  our  Blessed  Lord  is 
"highly  instructive  in  principle." 

The  reviewer  correctly  quotes  our  Confession  as  re- 
quiring the  unbaptized  to  receive  baptism  before  being 
admitted  to  the  Lord's  table.  This,  of  course,  is  highly 
proper  as  a  matter  of  church  order  among  weak  and 
fallible  men.  But  if  the  all-knowing  Master  himself 
were  present,  and  a  case  should  occur  where  an  unbap- 
tized christian  had  partaken  of  the  supper,  we  can 
hardly  suppose,  in  view  of  his  own  example,  that  he 
would  severely  condemn  the  action. 

But  if  it  still  be  asked,  why  do  Presbyterians  require 
a  belief  in  the  divinity  of  the  Saviour  and  his  spiritual 
mission,  &c,  if  He  admitted  those  who  did  not  recog- 


50  A  Defence. 

nize  those  truths  ?  The  answer  is,  because  church 
officeis  not  being  omniscient,  must  use  all  means  to 
arrive  at  the  moral  probabilities  of  the  great  inward 
change,  of  which  faith  and  repentance  are  the  fruits — 
and  one  of  the  best  of  those  probable  evidences  is  a 
cordial  reception  of  the  doctrine  that  Jesus  is  "Lord 
of  all,  &c." 

In  view  of  these  limitations,  the  chief  of  which 
were  staring  Dr.  P.  in  the  face  in  our  book,  how  could 
he  charge  us  with  "injurious  misrepresentation  of 
Christ,  &c,  &c  ?" 


CHAPTER  TIL 

AKGUMENT  FKOM  APOSTOLIC  EXAMPLE. 

I  HE  example  of  the  apostles  is  the  next  topic  ad- 
duced to  overthrow  "close  communion."  Let 
us  examine  whether  our  doctrine,  or  that  of  Dr.  P. 
most  resembles  theirs. 

ARGUMENT  III. 

In  receiving  persons  to  baptism,  what  sort  of  a  "pro- 
fession" did  those  inspired  men  require  as  "credible  ?." 
It  was  uniformly,  "Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
"Ifthou  believest  with  all  thy  heart."  This  was  a 
very  different  sort  of  "credible  profession  from  the  fol- 
lowing:'' Adhere  to  the  Westminster  Standards,  con- 
taining several  thousands  of  doctrinal  and  moral 
propositions  of  the  Confession  and  Catechisms,  to 
which  you  must  add  the  18  "Declarations"  of  our 
"Testimony."  "These  are  our  principles,  and  if  you 
are  professors  at  all,  you  are  professors  of  all  these." 
"Testimony,"  p.  37. 


Argument  from  Apostolic  Example.  51 

The  case  of  Peter,  Acts  10,  baptizing  Cornelius 
and  others  at  Cesarea,  is  first  mentioned  in  "close 
communion. "  Dr.  P.  very  truly  says  that  Peter  preached 
the  Gospel  to  Cornelius  and  his  followers,  such  truths 
as  "Christ  is  Lord  of  all/'  his  incarnation,  sufferings 
and  death,  and  his  resurrection  and  coming  to  judg- 
ment. "Observe,"  remarks  the  Dr.,  "Cornelius  ex- 
pressed a  desire  to  be  instructed,  not  merely  in  the 
'foundation  truths"  of  the  Gospel,  but  to  hear  "all 
things  that  are  commanded  of  God. "  The  reviewer  is 
great  on  such  points,  which  no  one  disputes.  But  the 
true  question  is,  what  was  the  great  test  of  fitness  for 
the  outward  seals  of  discipleship,  as  they  were  proposed 
by  Peter?  It  is  summed  up  in  v.  43.  "Through  his 
name,  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  shall  receive  re- 
mission of  sins."  The  next  verse  tells  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  being  immediately  poured  out ;  and  in  verse  47, 
Peter  says :  "Can  any  man  forbid  water  that  these 
should  not  be  baptized  which  have  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  well  as  we?  And  he  commanded  them  to  be 
baptized." 

Now  let  the  candid  reader  look  at  this  examp 
Peter  preaches  the  great  essential  truths  of  the  Gospe  , 
Christ  divine,  Christ  incarnate,  dying,  rising,  coming 
to  judgment.  Then  he  preaches  the  necessity  of  faith, 
including  repentance  and  the  remission  of  sins.  "While 
Peter  yet  spake,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  those  who 
heard  the  word."  Receiving  this  public  manifestation 
of  the  Spirit's  pewer  as  evidence  of  the  faith  of  his 
hearers,  Peter  at  once,  without  any  delay,  "commands 
them  to  be  baptized/'  On  what  ground  ?  A  belief  of 
a  whole  system  of  theology,  &c,  &c,  &c?  No.  "They 
have  received  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  they  are  believers ; 
therefore  "let  them  be  baptized." 

Observe,  further,  the  rapid  succession  of  these  events; 
preaching,  the  offer  to  believers,  receiving  the    Holy 


52  A  Defence. 

Spirit,  and  being  baptized,  all  at  the  same  service.  Is 
this  Dr.  P/s.  method  of  receiving  persons  to  baptism  ? 
According  to  his  theory,  the  apostle  ought  to  have 
held  an  examination  to  see  whether  these  persons  had 
correctly  understood  and  received  the  whole  sjstem  of 
theology,  from  the  creation  to  the  final  judgment,  es- 
pecially as  they  were  Gentiles,  and  of  course  had  been 
ignorant  idolaters. 

But  here  Dr.  P.  raises  an  objection.  "Suppose,"  he 
remarks,  "that  Cornelius  had  said,  to  your  "foundation 
truths"  I  do  not  object,  but  some  of  your  doctrines  I 
utterly  reject,"  &c.  We  reply  that  this  of  Dr.  P. 
would  be  a  proper  inquiry,  if  Peter  had  held  his 
notions,  required  an  examination  on  several  thousand 
doctrines  of  the  system  of  theology,  and  demanded  "an 
adherence"  to  them  all  But  the  presence  and  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  producing  faith  and  repentance  satisfied 
Peter  that  Cornelius  and  others  were  taught  of  God, 
and  therefore  "he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized." 

In  this,  and  other  similar  cases,  the  reviewer  dwells 
with  much  apparent  complacency  on  the  direction  of 
our  Lord,  Math.  28  :  20.  After  the  commision  to 
disciple  and  baptize  "all  nations,"  Jesus  adds,  "teach- 
ing them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded."  Dr.  P.  appears  to  wish  to  make  the 
impression  that  Presbyterians  dissent  from  this  part  of 
the  Apostolic  Commission,  and  do  not  consider  it  a 
duty  "to  teach  to  observe  all  things  which  Christ  has 
commanded;"  but  that  there  are  some  things  we 
choose  rather  to  drop  or  omit  to  teach.  The  Dr.'s 
logic  runs  thus:  Christ  commanded  the  Apostles  to 
teach  "all  things."  He  must  have  commanded,  there- 
fore, that  these  "all  things,"  be  taught  and  received 
before  baptism,  and  as  terms  of  communion.  No  one 
disputes  the  injunction  to  "teach  ail  things;"  the  real 
question  is  this :  "Must  they  be  taught  and  believed  as 


Argument  from  Apostolic  Example.  53 

pre-requisites  to  baptism  ?  According  to  Dr.  P/s 
theory,  our  Lord  meant  to  say,  "Go,  baptize  all  nations;" 
but  before  you  "baptize  7  require  them  to  learn  and 
believe  "all  things,"  the  whole  system  of  theology,  &c, 
&c.  If  Peter  obeyed  Christ's  commission  in  this  sense, 
he  must  have  had  a  very  short  time  to  teach  the  several 
thousand  propositions  of  the  Westminster  Standards  to 
Cornelius  and  the  others ;  and  they  must  have  been 
very  apt  scholars.  How  different  the  logic  of  that 
profound  scholar,  Dr.  Addison  Alexander  :  "The  rea- 
son assigned,"  he  says,  "is  that  those  who  had  received 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  must  certainly  be  fit  for  that 
of  water."  "Not  so,"  replies  Dr.  P.;  "they  must  first 
believe  '  the  truth,'  a  summary  of  which  we  have  in 
the  Westminster  Standards." 

"The  next  example,"  says  Dr.  P.,  "which  our  author 
adduces  in  support  of  his  theory,  is  that  of  the  Ethiopian 
Eunuch."  No,  Dr.,  the  "next  example"  is  that  of 
Simon  the  sorcerer,  baptized  by  Philip,  Acts  8,  and 
it  is  not  adduced  in  support  of  our  theory,  but  against 
close  communion.  On  this  case,  as  Dr.  P.'s  review 
has  slipped  over  it  very  lightly,  we  need  make  but  few 
comments.  The  record  is  simply  this  :  Simon  had 
bewitched  the  people  of  Samaria,  so  that  they  regarded 
him  as  "the  great  power  of  God  "  But  when  they  be- 
lieved Philip,  preaching  the  things  concerning  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they 
were  baptized."  Then,  it  is  added,  'Simon  himself 
believed,  and  when  he  was  baptized,  he  continued," 
&c,  Simon  was  a  hypocrite.  But  Dr.  P.  says  :  ''On 
the  ground  of  a  profession  of  Christianity,  he  was  re- 
ceived into  the  fellowship  of  the  church."  Here  the 
simple  question  is,  did  Philip's  preaching  and  the  pro- 
fession of  Simon  and  the  Samaritans,  include  all  that 
Dr.  P.  calls  "a  summary  of  the  trath,"  the  whole 
system  of  theology,  &c,  &c.  Philip  does  not  pretend 
3 


54  A  Defence. 

to  try  the  heart  even  of  a  Simon.  The  simple  con- 
dition, as  Dr.  P.  well  expresses  it,  was  "that  he  made 
a  credible  profession,  and  therefore  in  the  sight  of 
man  had  a  right  to  be  regarded  as  a  brother,"  &c. 

Next  we  take  up  "the  case  of  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch. 
The  record  is  simply  this :  "Philip  preached  unto 
him  Jesus ;  verse  35.  The  Eunuch  said,  "What  doth 
hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ?"  Philip  replies  :  "If  thou 
believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest."  The 
Eunuch  answers,  "I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God;"  "and  Philip  baptized  him."  But  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  1  '.'s  theory,  Philip  should  have  first  ex- 
amined whether  the  Eunuch  had  given  his  "adherence" 
to  the  whole  system  of  theology,  extending  from  the 
creation  to  the  last  judgment.  "The  Church  has  her 
creed,"  he  says,  "a  summary  of  the  faith  once  de- 
livered to  the  saints,"  and  which  she,  as  a  faithful  wit- 
ness, is  bound  to  teach.  By  his  professed  approbation 
of  this  form  of  sound  words,  the  person  makes  such  a 
profession  as  the  Church  has  a  right  to  demand,  "  &c. 
This  "creed,"  we  are  told,  is  "the  Westminster  Stan- 
dards," &c.  Whether  there  was  anything  like  such  a 
"creed"  enforced  in  the  Eunuch's  case  is  not  difficult 
to  decide. 

The  reviewer  makes  a  great  effort  to  bring  the 
knowledge  of  the  Eunuch  up  as  near  as  possible  to  his 
"terms  of  communion."  Thus  he  says,  "he  was  al- 
ready a  member  of  the  Church."  "He  had  received 
the  sacraments  of  circumcision  and  the  passover,  be- 
lieved in  the  Messiah,  and  was  waiting  for  his  appear- 
ance," &c.  This  is  very  doubtful.  Dr.  Jacobus,  in 
his  Commentary,  says,  "  May  he  not  have  been  'a, 
worshipper  of  God,'  as  Cornelius  was  a  'devout  man' 
in  that  sense,  though  excluded  by  his  physical  disabil- 
ity [Deut.  23  :  1]  as  the  uncircumcised  Gentiles  were." 

But  suppose  the  Eunuch's  intellectual  acquaintance 


Argument  from  Apostolic  Example.        5b 

with  the  scheme  of  divine  truth  to  have  been  as  ex- 
tensive as  Dr.  P.  imagines — that  is  not  the  question  in 
dispute.  The  point  is  this  :  have  we  the  smallest  evi- 
dence that  Philip  required  any  such  extended  knowl- 
edge as  a  term  and  condition  of  baptism  ?  Not  the 
least.  "  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
God."  He  believed  "  with  all  his  heart/'  "  and  Philip 
baptized  him."  That  is  the  simple  record.  Certainly 
very  unlike  Dr.  P.'s  theory  requiring  "  an  adherence 
to  the  33  chapters  of  the  Westminster  Standards,"  &c, 
&c.  Here  the  reviewer  raises  this  objection  ;  "  If  the 
Church,  he  says,  has  a  right  to  require  .only  "  that  a 
person  should  say,  i  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God/  you  must  receive  the  Universalist  and 
Unitarian,  for  they  will  make  this  profession."  Now, 
if  this  have  any  force,  it  is  equally  valid  against  the 
doctrine  of  Paul,  1  Cor.  12  :  3:  "  No  man  can  say  that 
Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  Dr.  P. 
may  here  object  that  the  Universalist,  &c,  can  say  all 
this:  ergo,  Paul,  your  doctrine  is  net  true  ! 

But  the  reviewer's  objection  is  a  mere  man  of 
straw.  No  Presbyterian  is  so  absurd  as  to  maintain 
"  that  all  the  Church  has  a  right  to  require  is  that  the 
candidate  should  say,  "  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  Son  of  God."  To  make  his  case  as  plausible  as 
possible,  Dr.  P.  misrepresents  Philip;  for  his  require- 
ment is,  "  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart, 
thou  mayest."  Dr.  P.  perverts  it  so  as  to  read,  "  If 
thou  sayest  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  !"  The  two 
statements  are  as  different  as  truth  from  error.  To 
"  believe  with  all  the  heart,"  is  "  to  believe  unto 
righteousness,"  as  Paul  tslls  us  [Rom.  10  :  10],  but  to 
say  that  "  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,"  is  to  do  only 
what  the  devils  have  done. 

To  show  still  further  the  utter  futility  of  this  ob- 
jection of  the  reviewer  as  against  our  doctrine,  take 


56  A  Defence. 

his  own  statement  of  it  as  follows  :  "  The  Church 
should  receive  into  her  fellowship  all  of  every  denom- 
ination who  in  the  judgment  of  charity  are  to  be 
considered  Christians."  [Ch.  Fell.  p.  56.]  Observe, 
"  in  the  judgment  of  charity."  Are  Universalists  to 
be  "considered  Christians  in  the  judgment  of  charity?" 
The  object  of  examination  in  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  regard  to  what  Calvin  calls  "  fundamental  doctrine," 
and  "the  fathers,"  Mason,  Smith,  and  Annan  call 
"  the  great  foundation  truths  of  the  Gospel,"  is  to 
form  this  "judgment  of  charity"  on  Scriptural 
grounds.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  if  Dr.  P.  has 
correctly  stated  our  doctrine  in  his  book  on  "  Church 
Fellowship,"  this  objection,  in  his  review,  is  the  merest 
quibble. 

In  a  word,  as  stated  in  our  book,  u  To  believe  with 
the  heart"  in  Christ,  is  equivalent  to  receiving  Him 
in  his  divine  character  as  our  loving  Saviour,  ll  the 
Lord  our  righteousness,"  as  Philip  had  expounded 
from  Is.  53.  This  was  Philip's  requirement,  and  this 
the  Eunuch's  faith.  This,  of  course,  Presbyterians 
require  of  all  who  make  application  for  membership  in 
the  Church.  But  they  cannot  see  that  Philip's  ex- 
ample makes  it  a  duty  to  demand  •'  an  adherence  to  the 
Westminster  Standards,"  &c,  &c. 

Look  next  at  the  example  of  the  Philippian  jailor. 
(Acts  16.  To  his  inquiry,  "What  must  I  do  to  be 
saved  ?"  Paul  replies,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  "  And  they  [Paul  and  Silas]  spake  unto 
him  the  words  of  the  Lord  and  to  all  that  were  in  his 
house."  "  And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  op 
the  night,  *  *  *  and  was  baptized,  he 
and  all  his."  "  He  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all 
his  house." 

The  reviewer  will  hardly  pretend  that  this  jailor 
was  "  a  member  of  the  Church,"  as  he  thinks  the 


Argument  from  Apostolic  Example.         57 

Eunuch  was.  He  was  obviously  a  poor,  ignorant 
heathen,  hardly  restrained  from  suicide.  Now  observe 
the  order  of  the  whole  process  of  his  conversion  and 
baptism  :  Paul  preaches  "the  word  of  the  Lord"  to 
him  an  awakened  sinner, — he  "  believes  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,"  and  the  same  hour  of  the  night  he  is 
baptized.  On  this  case  Dr.  P.  says,  "Instruction  in 
the  principles  of  the  Gospel  preceded  admission  into 
the  Church."  No  doubt  of  it — "the  principles  of  the 
Gospel."  That  is  precisely  our  doctrine.  We  should 
be  very  sorry  to  admit  to  baptism  an  adult  who  was 
not  instructed  in  "the  principles  of  the  Gospel !"  But 
is  that  the  same  as  the  following  :  "If  they  are  pro- 
fessors at  ail,  they  are  professors  of  all  the  Church's 
principles" — which  is  interpreted  to  mean  "an  ad- 
herence to  the  Westminster  Standards*"  [Testimony 
pp.  37:  7.]  This  poor  heathen,  enlightened  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  "believed  with  all  his  heart"  in  "Christ 
crucified,"  Christ  divine,  incarnate,  suffering,  dying, 
atoning,  rising,  reigning.  These  are  foundation  truths. 
These  were  the  "principles  of  the  Gospel"  which  he 
joyfully  received,  because,  being  convicted  of  sin,  he 
felt  his  need  of  just  such  a  Saviour.  But  do  these 
facts  correspond  with  Dr.  P/s  theory,  which  sets  up  as 
•'terms  of  communion,"  the  whole  "  body  of  Divin- 
ity," Confession,  Catechisms,  and  Testimony  ?"  Surely 
the  poor  heathen  "jailor  and  all  his  house"  must  have 
been  apt  scholars  to  receive  intelligently  a  vast  system 
of  theological  truth,  as  expounded  in  the  Larger  and 
Shorter  Catechisms,  &c,  "in  the  same  hour  of  the 
night." 

In  this  and  similar  cases  Dr.  P.  adroitly  changes  the 
terms  of  our  main  proposition.  We  do  not  adduce 
these  examples  as  arguments  to  "support  our  theory," 
as  he  alleges,  but  rather  to  confute  the  theory  of 
"Close  Communion."     That   is  the  express  object  of 


58  A  Defence. 

our  book;  not  to  establish  "Catholic  Communion," 
but  to  overthrow  "  Close  Communion."  Indirectly, 
indeed,  these  cases  do  afford  much  support  to  our  theory 
— but  the  direct  and  principal  design  of  their  use  is 
against  the  opposite  theory.  u  The  Christian  convert," 
Dr.  P.  tells  us,  "  was  required  not  only  to  declare  with 
the  Eunuch,  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
Grod,"&c.  But  here  he  misrepresents  the  sacred  record; 
the  Eunuch  was  required  by  Philip  not  "  to  declare" 
but  "  to  believe  with  all  his  heart,"  which  is  a  very 
different  thing  from  •'  declaring."  As  before  stated, 
the  devils  can,  and  do  u  declare"  that  "Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  G-od !"  On  p.  8  of  his  book,  Dr.  P.  says, 
"  The  Eunuch  signified  his  belief  of  the  fundamental, 
distinguishing  doctrine   of  the   creed."     That  is  true. 

Equally  fatal  to  the  close  communion  theory  is  the 
example  of  Lydia.  She  "  worshipped  God  " — "  the 
Lord  opened  her  heart  so  that  she  attended  unto  the 
things  spoken  by  Paul;"such  is  the  record.  Then  follows, 
"  And  when  she  was  baptized,"  &c.  And  so  of  the 
Pentecostal  believers  :  Peter  preached  Christ  cruci- 
fied, l<  the  principle  of  the  Gospel ;"  including  of 
course  the  principle  of  "  the  shedding  forth  "  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  virtue  of  Christ's  atonement  in  his 
converting  influences  Coriviction  of  sin  followed, 
and  "the  same  day"  "three  thousand"  were  bap- 
tized and  added  to  the  church.  On  Dr.  P/s  theory 
these  converts  must  have  been  apt  scholars,  if  "the 
same  dav"  they  intelligently  received  and  adopted  any 
such  vast  system  of  theology  as  that  of  Westminster, 
to  say  nothing  of  "The  Testimony  I" 

But  Dr.  P.  makes  short  work  of  our  argument  on 
these  topics.  "These  examples,  he  says,  "are  re- 
ferred to  in  support  of  the  theory  that  all  we  have  a 
right  to  demand  as  the  condition  of  membership  in  the 
Church  is  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ."     Here  the 


Argument  from  Apostolic  Example.        59 

Dr.'s  first  mistake  is,  in  stating  that  these  examples  are 
adduced  in  u  support  of  our  theory."  As  before 
said,  they  are  expressly  designed  as  arguments  against 
the  close  communion  theory — which  is  the  main  posi- 
tion of  our  book,  and  stated  in  its  very  title-page.  The 
second  mistake  of  the  Dr.  is  in  substituting  a  a  pro- 
fession of  faith  in  Christ/'  in  the  room  of  "  believing 
with  all  the  heart."  Profession  is  one  thing — "  be- 
lieving with  the  whole  heart  "  is  a  very  different  thing. 
The  Dr/s  third  and  principal  mistake  is  this :  He 
misrepresents  our  book  as  teaching  that  "  all  the 
Church  has  authority  to  require  as  the  condition  of 
membership  is  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ !"  This 
"profession"  he  interprets  for  us  to  mean  a  simple 
dead  faith,  exclusive  of  such  foundation  truths  as  re- 
pentance, "  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  his  death  as 
the  substitute  for  fallen  sinful  men  I"  Having  thus 
set  up  nis  man  of  straw,  he  of  course  is  quite  success- 
ful in  beating  it  down.  And  to  complete  the  caricature, 
he  pretends  to  quote  our  book  as  calling  this,  his  own 
absurd  figment,  "  the  inspired  pattern  !."  To  render 
this  misstatement  the  more  inexcusable,  he  had  before 
him,  staring  him  in  the  face,  the  following :  "  Can 
you  [Dr.  P.]  not  determine  the  doctrines  which  the 
Apostles  comprehended  in  their  creed,  and  which 
you  describe  as  leading  and  fundamental  ?  This  you 
can  surely  do  if  you  understand  the  Scriptures  ;  and 
thus  you  hava  all  that  the  inspired  pattern  required 
in  order  to  fellowship,  in  connection  with  a  a  credible 
profession."  Yet,  with  this  plain  declaration  before 
him  of  what  was  meant  by  "  believe  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,"  he  has  the  boldness  to  say  that  our 
"inspired  pattern"  rejects  the  fundamental  doctrines 
of  "  the  Trinity,  universal  depravity,  and  necessity  of 
regeneration  !"     Is  not  this  strange  ? 

Of  the  same  strange  and  unaccountable  sort  of  mis- 


60  *'  A  Defence. 

statement  is  the  following:  i:  Unless  yon,  Mr.  A., 
can  prove  that  the  Apostles,  whom  Christ  commissioned 
to  teaeh  '  all  things  whatsoever  He  had  commanded/ 
were  so  unfaithful  as  to  teaeh  nothing  more  than  '  the 
foundation  truths  of  the  Gospel/  this  example  [Pente- 
cost] is  fatal  to  your  theory/'  But  who  disputes  that 
the  Apostles,  in  the  discharge  of  their  ministry,  taught 
"■  all  things  commanded  ?"  No  one  is  so  absurd.  The 
real  question  is,  "  Did  they  require  an  intelligent  belief 
of  the  whole  system  of  Divine  truth  as  a  pre-requisite, 
or  condition  of  baptism  V  If  they  did,  then,  as  before 
said,  Paul  and  Silas  must  have  had  a  busy  time  of  it, 
and  the  Philippian  "  jailor  and  all  his  house  v  must 
have  learned  very  fast  "  that  same  hour  of  the  night  I" 
And  so  with  the  others.  As  to  Peter,  he  must  have 
done  wonders,  if  "on  the  same  day  "  [Pentecost]  he 
taught  the  whole  system  of  theology,  from  Genesis  to 
the  final  judgment ! 

Such,  then,  is  the  argument  against  u  Close  Com- 
munion" from  the  example  of  the  apostles.  No  better 
evidence  of  its  force  need  be  given  than  the  spasmodic 
struggles  of  the  reviewer  to  escape  from  its  grasp. 


CHAPTER  VIIL 

DOCTRINE  OF  THE  DIVINES  OF  WESTMINSTER. 

WE  next  test  the  doctrine  of  "Close  Communion" 
by  the  teaching  of  the  Westminster  Assembly. 

ARGUMENT  IV. 

The  Westminster  Assembly  did  not  hold  the  theory 
of  close  communion. 

The  26th  article  of  their  Confession  speaks  of  "a 
holy  fellowship  in  the  worship  of  God/'  and  then  adds, 


Doctrines  of  the  Divines  of  Westminster.     61 

"  which  communion,  as  God  offereth  opportunity  is  to 
be  extended  to  all  those  who  in  every  place  call  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

1.  This  article  is  verbally  the  same,  not  only  in  the 
Old,  New  School,  and  U.  P  Churches,  as  also  in  both 
classes  of  Covenanters  and  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  of  the  South,  but  the  same  in  all  the  Presbyte- 
rian Confessions  of  Scotland  and  Ireland.  The  practice  of 
the  Scottish  and  Irish  Churches,  as  we  are  told  by  Dr. 
Harper,  ol  the  U.  P.  body,  agrees  with  ours,  and  of 
course  they  interpret  the  26th  article  as  we  Presby- 
terians do.  It  is  rather  singular  that,  according  to 
Dr.  P  's  view,  those  noble  Churches  from  which  chiefly 
spring  ours  in  this  land,  should  have  so  generally  apos- 
tatized from  the  strict  faith  of  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly !  Can  the  Dr.  tell  us  when  and  how  this  "  falling 
away"  came  to  pass  ?     We  wait  for  a  reply. 

2.  The  Scottish  Commissioners  to  that  Assembly, 
Rutherford,  Anderson,  and  Bailey,  the  very  chiefs  of 
the  Scottish  "  fathers,"  held  communion  with  their 
brethren  in  England,  while  they  attended  that  body,  so 
we  are  informed  by  the  "  fathers  "  of  the  Overture, 
Annan,  Mason,  and  Smith.  On  this  principle  might 
not  Dr.  P.  innocently  commune  with  the  Covenanters? 

3.  A  third  stubborn  fact :  The  Westminster  As- 
sembly remained  steadily  in  fellowship  with  the  estab- 
lished Church  of  England,  although  justly  complaining 
of  great  corruptions  in  her  worship,  government  and 
discipline.  Baxter,  a  cotemporary,  says  in  his  life, 
that  "  the  members  were  all  Conformists,  save  about 
eight  or  nine,  and  the  Scottish  Commissioners." 

4.  But  the  "  most  unkindest  cut  of  all"  is  this:  In 
the  U.  P.  Quarterly  Review  for  1860,  when  Dr  P.  was 
one  of  its  editors,  we  find,  p.  137,  the  following  in 
regard  to  the  views  and  policy  of  that  venerable  As- 
sembly ; 


62  A  Defence. 

"Establishing,  or  intending  to  establish,  a  Church 
with  branches  of  the  same  order  in  other  countries,  their 
communion  was  properly  at  such  a  time  thrown  open 
to  individuals  of  credible  profession  in  other  than  what 
were  known  as  Reformed  Churches,  who  might  be 
driven  by  persecution,  or  cast  by  any  cause  temporarily 
among  them." 

Now  observe :  This  U.  P.  Quarterly  says  the 
Westminster  Assembly  "threw  open  their  communion," 
to  whom  ?  Dr.  P.  now  says  it  refers  "solely  to  the  reg- 
ular orderly  Protestant  Churches,  who  have  expressed 
their  orthodoxy  in  their  Confessions  of  faith,  and  ad- 
here thereto,  though  differing  from  us  in  some  external 
modes  and  forms."  These  "modes  and  forms"  he  des 
ignates  as  "whether  we  begin  public  worship  with 
praise  or  prayer,  whether  in  baptism  we  sprinkle  once 
or  thrice,  &c."  But  is  this  statement  of  the  views  of 
the  Assembly  correct?  No,  it  is  not  correct — certainly 
not,  if  we  can  place  any  confidence  in  his  own  "Quar- 
terly." The  "Quarterly"  says  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly "threw  open  their  communion  to  other  than  those 
known  as  Reformed  Churches."  What  Churches  were 
these  others  ?  The  "Quarterly"  says  they  were  "those 
called  Lutheran,  in  distinction  from  the  Reformed  or 
Calvinistic  Churches  of  Europe."  And  what  sort  of 
"orthodoxy"  did  these  Lutheran  Churches  profess  and 
adhere  to?  Did  they  hold  correct  views  upon  the 
sacramental  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood.  Did 
they  not  teach  consubstantiation  ?  Were  they  strictly 
Presbyterian  in  Church  government  ?  Every  novice 
can  answer  these  questions — and  the  true  answer  ut- 
terly condemns  Dr.  P.'s  views  of  the  meaning  of  the 
26th  article  of  the  Westminster  Divines.  It  is  thus 
demonstrated  that  either  his  review  of  our  book  on 
close  communion,  or  his  "Quarterly  Review,"  have 
very  greatly  mistaken  the  real  meaning  of  that  Assem- 


Doctrine  of  the  Divines  of  Westminster.    63 

bly.  The  Lutheran  Body,  to  whom  those  distin- 
guished divines  "threw  open  their  communion,"  "held 
to  the  use  of  images  in  their  Churches,  clerical  habits, 
wafers  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  uninspired  hymns  in 
praise,  and  exorcism  in  baptism,  as  useful  rites  and 
institutions."  So  says  Mosheim.  Yet  if  our  reviewer 
is  right,  these  must  have  been  "orderly  Protestant 
Churches,  clearly  expressing  their  orthodoxy  in  their 
Confession,  &c."  For  he  now  says,  "it  was  only  to  such 
churches  the  Assembly  of  Divines  extended  their 
communion."  Perhaps  he  can  tell  us  whether  the  Pres- 
byterian Churches  and  the  Covenanters  of  this  country 
are  quite  as  corrupt  as  those  Lutherans  were.  Yet  he 
utterly  refuses  to  hold  communion  with  us. 

5.  Observe  further,  that  the  clause  of  the  26th 
article — "which  communion,  as  Grod  offereth  opportu- 
nity, is  to  be  extended  unto  all  those  who  in  every 
place  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus" — is 
interpreted  by  Dr.  P.  "as  referring  particularly  to  chris- 
tian brethren  of  foreign  churches,  who  in  the  provi- 
dence of  God  might  be  temporarily  sojourning  among 
us."  Now  apply  the  rule  of  the  "Testimony"  to  those 
Lutheran  foreigners  :  uThe  Church  should  not  extend 
communion  to  those  who  refuse  to  forsake  a  commun- 
ion which  is  inconsistent  with  the  profession  she 
makes."  Did  these  Lutherans  forsake  their  old  com- 
munion ?  Certainly  not.  They  were  admitted,  Dr. 
P.  says,  as  "occasional  communicants,"  expecting  tore- 
turn  to  their  European  Church  connections. 

£.  Observe  still  further:  the  author  of  "Church 
Fellowship"  speaks  of  those  "who  adhere  to  a  system 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent  (he  does  not  say  how  great 
or  how  small  the  extent),  inconsistent  with  the  cause  of 
truth,"  and  adds  this  :  "That  the  Church  that  would 
be  faithful  to  her  Lord,  must  regard  such  persons  as 
those  who,  in  some  respects,  do  not  call  upon  the  name 


64  A  Defence. 

of  the  Lord  in  a  scriptural  maimer" — "who  in  some  re- 
spects walk  disorderly."  This  description  of  "disorderly 
walking"  certainly  includes  the  Lutherans  of  1643,  at 
least  as  plainly  as  it  includes  Presbyterians  and  Cove- 
nanters of  this  country.  But  what  follows  ?  The  Dr. 
adds  :  "  Therefore  so  long  as  they  choose  to  remain  in 
connection  with  a  system  of  error,  the  Church  may  not 
be  a  partaker  of  their  sin  by  receiving  them  into  her 
fellowship."  "  May  not  be  partaker  of  their  sin  !"  What 
a  wicked  thing  in  the  Westminster  Divines  to  "  throw 
open  their  communion  "  to  such  disorderly  walkers  as 
these  Lutherans.  Nor  must  it  be  supposed  that  all 
this  was  through  sympathy  for  refugees  escaping  from 
persecution.  Dr.  David  Kerr,  the  author  of  the  article 
in  the  Quarterly,  says  "  the  Assembly  extended  com- 
munion to  those  who  from  any  cause  resided  tempo- 
rarily in  England." 

That  the  Divines  of  Westminster  were  not  "  close 
communionists,"  is  virtually  declared  by  Hetherington, 
the  historian  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Thus,  he 
says,  "  the  full  arrangement  of  the  Confession,  form  of 
government,  discipline  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  as 
they  exist  at  the  present  day,  was  completed  in  1647," 
when,  as  he  tells  us,  "  the  Scottish  Assembly  ratified 
those  symbols  as  they  came  from  the  hands  of  the 
Assembly."  He  gives  no  whisper  of  any  departure 
from  their  strict  principles  of  communion,  though  the 
Churches  of  Scotland,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  re- 
ject the  "clcse  communion  theory"  at  the  present  day. 

On  the  whole,  we  respectfully  suggest  that  demon- 
stration itself  could  scarcely  make  anything  more 
clear,  than  that  the  Westminster  Divines  did  not  re- 
quire "  adherence  to  the  33  chapters  and  160  sections 
of  the  Confession,  and  196  questions  of  the  Larger  Cate- 
chism [to  say  nothing  of  the  Shorter  Catechism  and 
the  "  Testimony  "],  as  a  pre-requisite  to   baptism  and 


Doctrine  of  the  Divines  of  Westminster.     65 

the  Lord's  Supper.  Think  of  those  corrupt  Lutherans, 
with  all  their  sins  of  "  human  composition  in  the 
worship  of  God,  &c,  &c,"  on  their  heads,  yet  wel- 
comed to  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Rev.  Dr.  P.  would 
certainly  have  considered  them  as  ''walking  disorderly 
in  some  respects,"  and  of  course  he  could  not  have 
partaken  of  their  sin. 

On  such  broad  principles  as  these,  the  Westminster 
Divines  threw  open  their  communion  to  the  Lutherans, 
believing  that  such  communion  would  not  involve 
themselves  "in  a  direct  or  implied  apostacy  from  the 
testimony  of  Jesus,  and  that  holy  profession  of  his 
name."  Believing,  too,with  "Father  Annan,"  that  "the 
doctiine  that  in  no  circumstances  whatever  is  it  lawful 
for  one  of  their  members  to  hold  communion  with  any 
other  Protestant  Church  is  just  the  same  as  that  of 
the  Roman  Catholics."  Again  he  says,  "If  we  were 
in  Africa  and  Asia,  we  would  always  join  with  all 
Christians,  holding  the  same  fundamental  testimony 
against  Jews,  Turks,  and  Pagans."  These  were  the 
large  and  liberal  views  of  a  "father"  who  held  Dr.  P.'s 
"great  doctrine"  of  exclusive  psalmody  so  loosely  that 
he  wrote  as  follows  :  "We  do  not  mean  to  say  that 
hymns  of  human  composition  (JProh  jpudor!)  may  not 
be  lawfully  used  in  any  case  whatever !"  By  this, 
say  some  U.  P.'s,  he  merely  meant  "that  it  was  law- 
ful to  read  a  pious  poem  !"  A  very  sage  revelation 
indeed  from  a  committee  of  the  wisest  and  best  min- 
isters of  the  Church.  Such,  too;  was  the  "father," 
who  at  the  suggestion  of  his  congregation,  laid  aside 
"an  inspired  psalmody"  (Rouse)  and  introduced  "the 
loose  paraphrases  of  Tate  and  Brady.  We  beg  leave 
to  say,  therefore,  to  Dr.  P.,  that  we  have  neither 
slandered  nor  misrepresented  our  "venerable  father," 
as  he  charitably  affirms.  The  fact  of  "Father  Ancan's" 
having  substituted  Tate  and  Brady  in  the  room  of  "the 


66  A  Defence. 

inspired  psalmody  of  Rouse  in  public  worship,  is 
avowed  by  himself  in  his  pamphlet,  "The  Ruling 
Elder,"  as  also  the  further  fact  that  the  Synod  passed 
no  sort  of  censure  upon  him  on  account  of  this  great 
offence  ! 

But  here  Dr.  P.  interposes  thus  :  "You,  Mr.  A., 
represent  your  venerable  father  as  violating  his  solemn 
ordination  vows/'  But  Dr.  P.  seems  to  forget  his  own 
letter  to  Dr.  Mason  in  1818,  in  which  he,  a  minister, 
bound  by  those  same  ordination  vows,  speaks  in  very 
contemptuous  terms  of  *the  theory  of  a  literal  psalm- 
ody, &c,  and  announces  that  he  had  been  teaching 
from  the  pulpit  "the  doctrine  of  Catholic  communion  as 
an  irresistible  consequence  from  the  Church's  unity." 
If  "Father  Annan"  was  so  very  guilty,  what  shall  we 
think  of  John  T.  Pressly  ?  See  his  letter  in  a  former 
chapter.  The  plain  truth  is,  that  neither  the  "fathers" 
Mason  and  Annan,  nor  John  T.  Pressly  felt  under  any 
obligation  at  that  period  to  hold  and  teach  the  narrow, 
exclusive,  sectarian  notions  'which  Dr.  P.  now  exalts 
into  "terms  of  communion."  But  when  Dr.  P.  emi- 
grated from  South  Carolina  to  our  smoky  clime,  a 
great  and  sudden  "change  came  over  the  spirit  of  his 
dream."  The  old  classical  poet  said — ccelum,  non 
animum  mutant  qui  trans  mare  currunt.  But  Dr.  P. 
seems  to  have  changed  both  his  "mind"  and  his 
"  skies,"  when  he  came  to  Pittsburgh. 


Practical  Excommunication,  67 

CHAPTER  IX. 

PRACTICAL    EXCOMMUNICATION.      GREAT    INCON- 
SISTENCIES. 

Fifth   argument    to  disprove  the  "  Close  Com- 
munion" theory  is  as  follows  : 

ARGUMENT  V. 

That  theory  practically  excommunicates  all  other 
Christian  bodies  though  acknowledged  as  "  Sister 
Churches."  On  this  topic  the  reviewer,  so  far  as  we 
have  observed,  is  entirely  silent.  The  chief  authori- 
ties adduced  in  our  book,  are  the  Rev.  J.  A.  Sloan,  of 
the  Associated  Reformed  Church,  and  a  correspond- 
ent of  "the  United  Presbyterian"  for  July,  1857.  "Men 
should  ponder  well,"  says  the  latter,  "the  responsibility 
assumed  in  maintaining  existing  divisions,  by  con- 
tending for  minor  peculiarities,  and  urging  them  as 
terms  of  communion,  to  the  exclusion  of  brethren 
who  are  one  with  themselves  in  all  the  fundamentals 
of  Christian  doctrine,  worship  and  order."  "All  true 
Christians,  say  the  "  fathers  "  of  the  Overture,  have 
communion  with  Christ  and  with  each  other  in  the 
truth — they  think  as  Christ  thinks — are  all  taught  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  "  have  all  communion  in  the  justify- 
ing righteousness  and  sanctifying  spirit  of  Christ." 
"  We  will  not  pretend,"  they  say,  "  to  unchurch  all  the 
Protestant  Churches."  "  We  never  can  and  never 
will  embrace  the  principle  that  all  the  Protestant 
Churches,  except  our  own  party,  are  unfit  for  Christian 
or  holy  communion."  To  all  this,  "  Father  Annan  " 
adds  :  "It  is  impossible  that  a  Church  can  be  in  any 
sense  a  Church  of  Christ,  if  it  be,  in  all  supposable 
cases,  unlawful  to  hold  communion  with  her." 

From  these  extracts,  it  is  plain  that  the  "  fathers  " 
regarded  "all  true  Christians"  as  one  in   Christ,  and 


68  A  Defence. 

that  to  pronounce  communion  with  "  Sister  Churches," 
who  hold  the  fundamentals  to  be  "impure  and  con- 
taminating," is  virtually  to  excommunicate,  or  un- 
church them.     Ruling  Elder,  p.  45. 

ARGUMENT  VI. 

The  theory  of  "close  communion  "  involves  its  advo- 
cates in  gross  inconsistencies  with  their  own  profes- 
sions. 

Look  for  example  at  the  expressions  employed  by 
Dr.  P.  "  Faithfulness  to  Christ  and  the  truth,"  "wit- 
nesses for  the  truth,"  "solemn  responsibilities,"  "  or- 
dination vows,  &c."  Yet  it  is  notorious  that  many  of 
the  "  principles"  in  regard  to  which  they  use  this 
solemn  language,  are  constantly  ignored  by  Dr.  P.  and 
other  ministers  and  members  of  the  U.  P.  Body. 

1.  Take  the  case  of  Prof.  Dinwiddie,  who,  some 
years  since,  was  colleague  with  Dr.  Pressly  in  the  U.  P, 
Theological  Seminary.  He  went  from  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church — but  did  he  ever  repent  of  the  sin  of 
singing  Watt's  Psalms  and  Hymns  ?  Of  course  he  had 
been  guilty  of  violating  the  law  of  close  communion. 
Yet  he  was  installed  as  the  teacher  and  model  of  young 
ministers. 

2.  Then  there  is  the  case  of  Dr.  Davidson,  who 
has  openly  avowed  that  he  has  admitted  to  sealing  or- 
dinances persons  who  hold  doctrines  inconsistent  with 
the  distinctive  principles  of  the  U.  P.  Church,  &c,  and 
he  says  he  intends  to  continue  in  this  and  other  prac- 
tices, in  violation  of  the  rigid  theory  of  Dr.  P.  This 
course,  he  says,  "his  commission  from  Christ  requires 
of  him."  Yet  while  thus  openly  defying  his  brethren 
to  inflict  discipline,  he  maintains  a  secure  and  honor- 
able position  among  them. 

3.  And  so  on  the  subjects  of  "exclusive  psalmody," 
"secret   societies,"    and  "  public  social  covenanting  " 


Great  Inconsistencies.  £9 

Dr.  Davidson,  Rev.  Mr.  McDill,  and  Rev.  J.  A.  McGaw 

who  were  editors  of  the  Union  Presbyterian,  assure  us 
that  the  ''Testimony"  is  extensively  disregarded  by 
United  Presbyterians;  "even  in  and  around  Pitts- 
burgh ;"  they  tell  us  many  of  them  sing  "the  devotion- 
al compositions  of  uninspired  men  loudly  and  repeat- 
edly." 

4.  The  Christian  Instructor,  of  Philadelphia,  pub- 
lishes an  article  from  a  correspondent  (March  16th, 
1867),  who  says:  'I  do  not  think  it  would  much  af- 
fect Christianity  as  a  sytem  whether  close  communion 
or  the  exclusive  use  of  the  Psalms  was  voted  up  or 
down." 

Now,  if  Dr.  P.  really  maintains  the  doctrine  that 
the  rigid  execution  of  his  "principles"  is  required  in 
"faithfulness  to  the  Head  of  the  Church,"  why  does 
he  suffer  the  thunders  of  discipline  to  sleep  ?  W  hy  ex- 
hibit before  a  scoffing  world  such  lofty  pretensions  of 
religious  responsibility,  in  violent  contrast  with  these 
"lame  and  impotent  conclusions  ?"  It  is  not  merely 
inconsistent — it  is  morally  wrong.  "It  is  better  not  to 
vow,  than  to  vow  and  not  pay."  Ecclesiastes  5  :  5. 
The  editors  of  the  Union  Presbyterian,  themselves 
ministers  of  the  U.  P.  Body,  say,  that  to  attempt  to 
execute  the  rigid  theory  would  "painfully  deplete  their 
congregations  and  crowd  uncomfortably  sister  church- 
es." Occasionally,  indeed,  we  hear  of  a  member  or 
elder  brought  before  the  Session  for  joining  in  wor- 
ship with  a  Presbyterian  family  while  singing  Watts' 
Psalms  and  Hymns,  or  some  similar  offence.  But  such 
discipline  so  shocks  the  christian  sympathies  of  other 
churches  that  it  is  not  often  repeated.  But  as  the  re- 
viewer does  not  deny  the  facts  nor  attempt  to  invali- 
date the  inferences  in  this  argument,  we  pass  to  other 
topics. 

4 


70  A  Defence, 

CHAPTER  X. 

EXAMINATION  OF  PROOF  TEXTS. 

ET  us  now  examine  some  of  the  proof-texts  in 
which  "Close  Communion"  is  supposed  to  be 
either  directly  taught  or  plainly  implied. 

Dr.  P.  introduces  Amos  3  :  3 :  "Can  two  walk  to- 
gether except  they  be  agreed" — to  establish  and  seal 
the  following ; 

"If  they  are  not  willing  to  unite  with  her  (the 
church)  in  professing  and  maintaining  the  truth,  fidel- 
ity to  her  exalted  King  requires  that  she  should  close 
the  door  of  her  fellowship  against  them.  'How  can 
two  walk  together,  &c/  " 

On  this  we  said  it  was  "torturing  Amos  3  ;  3,  into 
the  service  of  close  communion."  But  Dr.  P.  denies 
that  "the  text  was  quoted  by  him  to  establish  any  the- 
ory of  communion."  But  this  is  the  veriest  quibbling. 
Do  you  not  quote  that  text  (Amos  3  :  3)  as  an  inspired 
proof,  a  Divine  seal  to  your  statement  "that  she  (the 
church)  should  close  the  door  of  fellowship  against 
them" — *.  e.  against  those  not  willing  to  profess  and 
maintain  the  truth  ?"  And  what  do  you  mean  by  "the 
truth?"  A  few  lines  before  you  say  it  is  "the  creed" 
— "a  summary  of  what  the  Church  understands  to  be 
the  great  doctrines  of  the  Bible."  And  it  is  to  estab- 
lish this  use  of  your  "creed,,  ("the  Westminster  Stand- 
ards") that  you  quote  Amos  3:3:  "How  can  two 
walk  together  except  they  be  agreed."  It  is  a  poor 
evasion,  therefore,  to  allege  that  you  did  not  quote  that 
text  "to  establish  any  particular  doctrine." 

But  how  extensive  was  this  agreement  at  the  first 
supper  ?  Did  not  Christ  and  his  disciples  "walk  to- 
gether" for  several  years?  And  were  they  agreed 
upon  such  points  as  his  Divine  character,  his  spiritual 
mission,  &c  ?     Dr.  P.  hits  the  truth  precisely  when  he 


Examination  of  Proof  Texts.  71 

says,  "In  the  primitive  days  of  Christianity,  the  creed 
of  the  church  was  brief  and  simple,  embracing  a  few 
of  the  leading  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible." 
This  was  the  sort  of  creed  imposed  by  Philip — "If 
thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest."  But 
Dr.  P.  employs  Amos  3  :  3,  to  show  that  the  church 
should  exclude  all  who  are  not  agreed  in  the  33  chap- 
ters of  the  Confession,  &c,  &c,  &c. 

Another  text  often  referred  to  by  Dr.  P.  is  the  3d 
verse  of  Jude  :  "Ye  should  earnestly  contend  for  the 
faith,  &c."  He  says  he  intended  it  merely  as  "incul- 
cating the  duty  of  the  church  to  maintain,  defend7  and 
propagate  that  system  of  faith  which  has  been  deliver- 
ed to  the  saints."  But  as  no  one  in  his  right  mind  de- 
nies that  such  is  "the  duty  of  the  church,"  where  was 
the  use  of  quoting  that  text  ?  If  Jude  had  said,  a  Ye 
must  'earnestly  contend  for  the  faith'  by  requiring  all 
candidates  for  baptism  to  give  an  intelligent  assent  to 
the  several  thousand  propositions  of  the  whole  Body  of 
Divinity,"  the  text  would  have  had  great  force.  Of 
the  same  loose,  illogical  sort  of  writing  is  Dr.  P/s  fre- 
quent quotation  of  such  passages  as,  "they  continued 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles  j"  "teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  1  have  commanded  you, 
&c,  &c."  These  texts  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
question  of  "terms  of  communion."  No  one  disputes 
the  duty  of  instruction  in  all  Christ's  commands ;  the 
point  is,  how  much  was  required  to  be  intelligently 
adopted  as  pre-requisites  to  baptism  ? 

Another  strange  specimen  of  confusion  of  ideas  is 
this  :  Dr.  P.  positively  denies  that  his  book  teaches  the 
following:  "The  church  must  demand  of  all  appli- 
cants a  union  in  every  particular  truth  taught  in  the 
Scriptures."  But  if  his  language  has  any  meaning,  he 
does  teach  precisely  this  doctrine  in  the  same  para- 
graph.    Thus:    "The  church   is  under  oblgations  to 


72  A  Defence. 

teach  every  truth  revealed  in  the  Word  of  God." 
Very  well.  No  one  denies  that.  But  he  adds  in  the 
next  sentence;  "and  is  the  church  under  obligations  to 
receive  into  her  fellowship  one  who  rejects  the  truth 
which  her  Divine  King  required  her  to  teach  ?  Could 
she  do  so  and  be  faithful  to  her  Lord  V  In  other 
words,  "She  must  teach  every  truth  revealed/'  and  she 
must  "refuse  fellowship''  to  one  who  rejects  "the  truth 
she  is  required  to  teach."  If  that  does  not  mean  that 
the  church  must  require  the  applicant  to  receive  "every 
truth  revealed,"  what  does  it  mean  ?  Dr.  P.  often  says 
things  "in  haste,"  which  he  is  obliged  to  take  back. 
We  have  already  shown  what  ^ort  of  "a  creed"  the 
apostles  contended  for  when  admitting  persons  to  bap- 
tism. 

The  author  of  "  Church  Fellowship "  also  cites 
Romans  16  :  17.  "  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  mark 
them  which  cause  divisions  and  offences  among  you, 
contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  you  have  learned,  and 
avoid  them."  The  next  verse  describes  the  persons 
referred  to — "they  serve  not  Christ,  but  their  own 
belly,  and  by  good  words  and  fair  speeches  deceive  the 
hearts  of  the  simple."  "Whatever  they  professed," 
says  the  judicious  Scott,  *  *  *  *  "they  sought 
indulgence  of  their  appetites  *  *  *  in  order  to 
support  themselves  and  live  in  plenty  without  labor." 
Now  we  cordially  agree  with  Dr.  P.  that  he  should 
avoid  such  persons,  and  have  no  fellowship  with  them  ; 
and  if  found  in  the  church  he  should  put  them  out  of 
it.  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  the  exclusion  from 
communion  of  the  pious  and  devoted  members  of  those 
which  he  calls  "  sister  churches  ?"  He  might  as  well 
quote  the  text  "Woe  unto  you  lawyers,"  to  prove  that 
no  member  of  the  bar  should  be  received  to  the  Lord's 
Supper.  As  to  "causing  divisions,"  Dr.  Mason  has 
well  said,  that  if  Dr.  P.'s  theory  were  strictly  enforced, 


Examination  of  Proof  Texts.  16 

"there  would  be  no  place  in  the  church  for  one  Chris- 
tian in  ten  thousand:"  for  how  many  of  the  professors 
of  the  present  day  could  answer  intelligently  all  the 
questions  in  tbe  Catechisms,  to  say  nothing  of  the  160 
sections  of  the  Confession,  and  18  Declarations  of  the 
"Testimony  ?"  In  his  recent  review,  Dr.  P.  takes  no 
notice  of  our  remarks  upon  his  use  of  this  text.  The 
reason  of  this  silence  he  knows  best. 

Another  favorite  text  with  Close  Communionists  is 
2  Thessalonians  3  :  6.  "Now,  we  command  you,  breth- 
ren, in 'the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye 
withdraw  yourselves  from  every  brother  that  walketb 
disorderly,  and  not  after  the  tradition  which  ye  received 
of  us."  Dr.  Scott  says,  the  persons  here  marked  were 
those  who  "would  not  work,"  "busy  bodies" — "they 
had  quitted  the  Christian  ranks,  and  deserted  their 
post" — "made  religion  a  pretence  for  indolence,  sub- 
sisting on  the  liberality  of  the  brethren" — "expecting 
to  be  maintained  in  idleness" — "exciting  disturbance 
among  families  to  the  injury  of  men's  characters,  and 
so  their  families  were  reduced  to  great  distress."  This 
is  the  sort  of  "disorderly  walking"  which  Paul  here 
condemns,  and  from  which  he  commands  Christians  to 
"withdraw  themselves."  But  what  has  all  this  to  do 
with  the  question  whether  it  is  a  duty  to  refuse  com- 
munion with  the  pious  members  of  orderly  "sister 
churches  V  Dr.  P.  indeed  ventures  to  say  that  the 
person  referred  to  "was  not  living  in  flagrant  sin." 
But  is  stealing  not  a  flagrant  sin  ?  And  was  not  the 
disorderly  one  seeking,  as  Scott  says,  "to  live  at  other 
people's  expense,  and  in  idleness  ?" 

Dr.  P.  also  says  this  "disorderly  person"  is  sup- 
posed to  be  a  Christian  brother — "  was  not  chargeable 
with  something  utterly  inconsistent  with  Christian 
character."  "  A  Christian  brother  !"  But  it  is  a  fa- 
miliar canon   of  sacred    criticism  "that   assertions  of 


'4  A  Defence. 

this  sort  are  often  made  in  the  Scriptures,  referring 
only  to  external  character  and  profession — just  as  Je- 
rusalem, though  compared  by  Isaiah  to  Sodom,  is 
called  "  the  Holy  City."  Matth.  28  :  53.  Thus  Phari- 
sees are  called  by  our  Lord,  "righteous."  "I  came 
not  to  call  the  righteous."  So  Paul,  "the  foolishness 
of  preaching ;"  and  twelve  thrones  were  promised  to 
the  disciples,  including  Judas.  See  also  2  Cor.  5  :  11. 
And  as  to  "Christian  character/7  if  Dr.  P.  had  given 
his  readers  Scott's  Notes  on  the  subject,  they  would 
have  been  amazed  at  his  notions  of  "  Christian  char- 
acter I" 

So  when  Paul  exhorts,  in  2  Thess.  3  :  J  4, 15,  "If  any 
man  obey  not  our  word  by  this  epistle,  note  that  man 
and  have  no  company  with  him.  Yet  count  him  not 
as  an  enemy,  but  admonish  him  as  a  brother."  Here 
this  "  brother"  is  described  as  one  who  "obeys  not"  the 
G-ospel  taught  by  Paul,  and  of  course  makes  not  a"credi- 
ble  profession."  So  he  exhorts  Timothy  "  to  withdraw 
himself  *  *  *  from  those  who  were 

proud,  knowing  nothing — men  of  corrupt  minds,  desti- 
tute of  the  truth,  supposing  that  gain  is  godliness." 
These  are  the  "  brothers  "  from  whom  the  Church  was 
required  to  "withdraw  herself."  The  allusion  is  ob- 
viously to  cases  of  needful  discipline  in  order  to  ex- 
clude those  who,  having  by  some  means  been  admitted 
to  the  Church,  were  found  to  be  a  scandal  to  religion. 
But  what  has  this  to  do  with  Dr.  P.'s  practice  of  ex- 
cluding Covenanters  and  Old  School  Presbyterians, 
the  members  of  "  sister  churches."  It  is  remarkable 
that  in  his  review,  the  author  of  "  Church  Fellow- 
ship" makes  no  attempt  to  vindicate  this  text  (2 
Thess.  3  :  6)  from  the  objections  made  in  "  Close  Com- 
munion'" Perhaps  he  was  satisfied  that  the  less  said 
the  better. 

How  striking  the  contrast  with  the  close  communion 


Examination  of  Proof  Texts.  T5 

theory  is  the  doctrine  taught  in  such  passages  as 
these :  "  Receive  ye  one  another  as  Christ  also  re- 
ceived us  to  the  glory  of  God/'  "  Him  that  is  weak 
in  the  faith  receive  ye,  but  not  to  doubtful  disputa- 
tions/' Dr.  P.  sets  up  his  unscriptural  "  terms  of 
communion,"  including  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the 
Catechisms,  and  the  "  Testimony,"  and  then  proclaims 
that  the  whole  Protestant  world  must  conform  to  his 
views,  or  be  found  guilty  of  "causing  divisions," 
"  rending  the  seamless  robe  of  the  Saviour!"  "The 
Man  of  Sin"  goes  a  step  further,  and  denounces  all 
Protestants  as  heretics ! 

We  have  thus  demonstrated,  if  we  mistake  not,  that 
the  passages  of  Scripture  to  which  Dr.  P.  makes  his 
appeal,  must  be  wrested  from  their  true  meaning  before 
they  can  be  made  to  prop  his  doctrine  of  close  com- 
munion. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

MATTERS  MISCELLANEOUS  AND  CURIOUS. 

EFORE  proceeding  to  a  few  other  points  in  Dr. 
_  )  P/s  review,  we  must  express  our  gratitude  for 
the  honorary  title  with  which  he  has  favored  us, 
"That  man  of  war."  As  some  small  return  for 
the  favor,  we  had  serious  thoughts  of  dubbing  Dr.  P. 
that  man  of  peace.  A  list  of  the  very  pacific  epi- 
thets he  has  employed  in  berating  those  who  have  ven- 
tured to  question  his  logical  skill,  from  the  days  of  Dr. 
Ralston  to  the  present,  would  be  a  literary  curiosity. 
But  we  must  not  blot  our  page  with  any  such  speci- 
mens of  peace-making.  We  assure  the  Dr.,  however, 
that  we  have  no  great  objection  to  a  title  which  the 
Scriptures  several  times  apply  to  "  the  sweet  Psalmist 


76  A  Defence. 

of  Israel."  Even  Paul  exhorts,  "  Fight  the  good 
fight  of  faith" — and  we  are  commanded  "to  be  valiant 
for  the  truth/'     But  to  proceed  : 

1  The  Primitive  Creed.  "  In  the  primitive  days 
of  Christianity,"  says  Dr.  P.;  "  the  creed  of  the  Church 
was  brief  and  simple,"  &c.  As  this  was  said  in  a 
book  on  "  Church  Fellowship,"  it  was  natural  to  sup- 
pose that  it  had  reference  to  the  apostolic  mode  of  re- 
ceiving persons  to  communion.  But  he  now  says  that 
by  "the  primitive  days  of  Christianity"  he  did  not 
mean  "  the  days  of  the  apostles  "  We  had  supposed 
lt  the  days  of  the  apostles"  were  in  the  highest  and 
best  sense  i(  primitive  days!"  But  it  seems  in  the 
Dr. 's  book,  "  primitive"  means  some  time  after  the 
death  of  the  apostles.  "The  apostles,"  he  further 
says,  "prepared  no  creed  for  the  Church;"  yet  he  ad- 
mits that  in  receiving  to  baptism,  "  they  acted  upon 
the  principle  of  a  creed."  But  this  is  a  distinction 
without  a  difference.  For  assuredly  if  the  apostles  re- 
quired a  belief  of  anything  having  a  remote  resem- 
blance to  the  160  Sections  of  the  Confession  and  18 
Declarations  of  the  Testimony,  they  must  have  used  a 
pretty  extensive  creed. 

2.  A  Credible  Profession.  Let  us  try  to  gather 
from  Dr.  P.'s  various  declarations,  what  are  his  precise 
views  of  "  a  credible  profession."  Thus  he  emphati- 
cally denies  (i  that  the  man  who  professes  to  believe 
some  of  the  truths  of  the  G-o^pel  (he  means  what  the 
fathers  of  the  Overture  call  the  "  foundation  truths  ") 
while  he  openly  rejects  other  truths,  should  be  received 
as  a  true  disciple."  This  virtually  destroys  the  dis- 
tinction between  essentials  and  non-essentials  to  salva- 
tion. And  a  few  lines  farther  on  we  read,  "  It  follows 
that  for  all  practical  purposes  '  a  credible  profession '  is 
a  profession  of  faith  in  every  doctrine  revealed  in  the 
Bible."     But  of  these    "  doctrines  revealed,"    "there 


Matters    Miscellaneous.  77 

must,"  he  says,  "  be  some  test,  and  that  test  is  the 
Church's  publicly  acknowledged  Confession  of  Faith." 
Thus,  it  appears,  he  utterly  rejects  what  Calvin  calls 
il  fundamental  doctrines,"  as  the  test  of  fitness  for 
baptism,  and  goes  to  the  full  extent  of  the  160  sections, 
&c,  &c,  &c.  But  the  absurdity  of  applying  such  a 
"  test"  to  youth  from  ten  to  sixteen  years  of  age,  and 
to  most  others,  has  already  been  exposed.  Besides, 
the  Dr.  must  have  thrown  this  rigid  doctrine  overboard 
when  he  admitted  the  late  Rev.  Mr.  Dinwiddie  to  a 
professor's  chair  in  his  Seminary.  Was  he  not  "  re- 
ceived as  a  true  disciple  ?" 

3  Foundation  Truths.  In  attempting  to  destroy 
the  distinction  between  essentials  to  salvation  and  non- 
essentials, Dr.  P.  inquires,  "  Will  our  author  tell  us 
where  our  Lord  has  distinguished  between  those  "foun- 
dation truths  "  which  the  Church  should  require  men 
to  believe  as  the  condition  of  Church  Fellowship  and 
those  other  revealed  truths  which  they  may  reject,  and 
enjoy  this  privilege  ?"  This  is  a  proper  question,  and 
we  will  try  to  answer  it. 

(1.)  "  The  Fathers,"  Annan,  Mason,  and  Smith  say, 
"  All  true  Christians  think    as  Christ  thinks,  on  the 

GREAT  FOUNDATION  TRUTHS  of  the  GrOSpel."       If  this 

be  so,  then  these  l-  fathers"  must  have  known  what 
those  " foundation  truths"  are — otherwise  they  stul- 
tified themselves  in  saying  that  "all  true  Christians" 
agree  on  them.  Dr.  P.,  however,  inquires, "  Who 
will  presume  to  determine  precisely  what  doctrines  in 
the  Bible  are  essential- to  salvation,  or  what  amount  of 
error  may  consist  with  the  reality  of  the  Christian 
character  V-  Well,  is  it  not  plain  that  "  the  fathers  " 
did  "presume  to  determine"  this  very  point;  since 
they  speak  of  "  the  foundation  truths"  on  which  "all 
Christians  think  as  Christ  thinks?"  Besides,  the 
fathers  give  us  a  very  safe  test  of  these  "foundation 
5 


78  A  Defence. 

truths " — "  true  Christians  think  as  Christ  thinks/' 
Will  you  say  you  cannot  tell  what  "  Christ  thinks  " 
on  just  these  doctrines  ?  But  that  is  simply  to  say, 
you  cannot  understand  the  Scriptures,  which  is  down- 
right Popery. 

(2.)  When  Dr.  P.  said  in  the  "United  Presbyterian," 
that  the  Old  School  and  U.  P.  Churches  hold  substan- 
tially the  same  views  in  relation  to  the  great  doc- 
trines of  Christianity,"  did  he  not  know  what  those 
"  great  doctrines"  are?  Surely  he  did  not  stultify 
himself  by  asserting  what  he  did  not  know  ? 

(3.)  If,  then,  both  the  "  fathers"  and  Dr.  P.  could 
so  readily  ascertain  the  "  foundation  truths/7  where  is 
the  difficulty  in  applying  them  as  a  condition  of  fel- 
lowship in  the  Church  ? 

"Even  if  the  doctrine  is  mingled  with  some 
errers,"  said  the  incomparable  Calvin,  "I  am  sat- 
isfied if  iundamental  doctrine  is  maintained.  And 
thus,"  he  continues,  "may  the  orthodox  participate 
in  the  sacraments  even  in  Geneva."  On  principles, 
such  as  these,  every  person  of  sense  can  distinguish 
between  those  essentials  to  salvation,  and  such  non- 
essentials as  the  doctrine  of  "the  Psalms  exclusively," 
"  Close  Communion,"  "sinfulness  of  secret  societies," 
"  public  social  covenanting,"  and  many  other  such  doc- 
trines. That  the  Apostles  acted  on  this  distinction 
has  been  abundantly  proved  in  a  former  chapter. 

4.  A  great  objection.  Suppose,  says  Dr.  P.,  a  man 
applies  for  baptism  and  should  say,  "I  do  not  believe 
the  doctrine  of  particular  election ;  the  doctrine  of 
predestination  I  abhor;"  and  I  regard  the  doctrine  of 
a  "definite  atonoment  as  dishonoring  to  God." 

The  Dr.  inquires  whether  such  a  person  is  to  be  re- 
ceived on  the  ground  of  holding  the  "foundation 
truths?" 

This  question  admits  of  an  easy  solution.     Our  the- 


Matters     Miscellaneous.  79 

ory,  as  stated  by  the  General  Assembly,  is  "to  receive 
all  who  in  the  judgment  of  charity  are  the  friends  of 
Christ."  Of  course,  the  great  end  of  examination  is 
to  arrive  at  the  evidences  of  true  piety,  friendship  to 
Christ. 

In  the  case  mentioned  by  Dr.  P.,  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  ascertain  whether  his  conceptions  of  those  doc- 
trines were  agreeable  to  the  teachings  of  the  Bible ;  or 
whether  he  had  formed  his  notions  from  the  hideous 
caricatures  published  by  certain  enemies  of  our  church. 
Jf  his  hatred  to  those  doctrines,  when  correctly  stated, 
appeared  to  arise  from  that  native  enmity  which  the 
natural  heart  always  feels  toward  them,  this  would  show 
that  he  did  not  "believe  with  the  heart,"  the  great 
"fundamental  doctrine"  of  free,  sovereign  grace.  Of 
course  he  would  be  rejected.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  were  found,  as  in  most  cases  it  would  be,  that  the 
applicant's  notions  of  election,  &c,  were  founded  in 
total  misconception  of  the  truth  •  then,  if  he  were  in- 
deed a  pious  man,  it  would  not  be  difficult  so  to  en- 
lighten his  mind  that  he  would  admire  and  rejoice  in 
those  doctrines :  of  course  he  would  then  be  received. 

It  is  very  evident,  however,  that  the  case  stated  by 
Dr.  P.  is  of  no  practical  importance.  There  are 
churches  enough  who  deny  the  doctrines  he  mentions, 
and  who  would  gladly  receive  such  an  applicant.  Our 
Sessions  are  not  likely  to  have  any  such  person  before 
them.  Still  we  have  explained  to  the  Dr.  how,  in  per- 
fect consistency  with  our  doctrine  of  "foundation 
truths,"  we  would  dispose  of  such  cases. 

5.  A  frightful  volume.  Dr.  P.  says,  "Mr.  Annan 
speaks  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  *  *  *  as 
though  it  were  a  frightful  volume."  But  the  Dr.,  in 
this  instance,  makes  a  mistake  similar  to  the  one  he 
fell  into  in  regard  to  the  phrase  "Rouse's  Psalms." 
At  first  he  seemed  to  be  quite  horrified,  pronouncing  it 


80  A  Defence. 

an  exhibition  "of  ignorance  or  something  worse."  But 
when  it  was  proved  that  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland  had  used  the  same  terms,  he  had 
nothing  more  to  say.  We  have,  we  admit,  said  much 
to  expose  the  absurd  use  which  he  attempts  to  make 
of  the  Confession  and  Catechisms  as  terms  of  Com- 
munion. But  of  the  Confession  itself  we  have  the 
highest  admiration,  as  one  of  the  noblest  uninspired 
works  in  the  world,  second  only  to  the  Word  of  God. 
Yet  the  Dr.  says,  "Just  look  at  the  contemptuous  man- 
ner in  which  this  man  speaks  of  that  admirable  sum- 
mary, &c."  Nut  so,  Dr. !  If  we  have  employed  any 
such  language,  it  was  aimed,  not  at  the  Confession,  but 
at  your  absurd  mode  of  using,  as  terms  of  Communion, 
that  noble  summary,  consisting,  as  it  does,  of  several 
thousand  doctrinal  and  ethical  propositions,  some  of 
them  very  abstract,  and  challenging  the  most  exalted 
genius  to  comprehend  them,  even  in  part.  That  is 
"the  head  and  front  of  our  offending." 

6.  Ordinary  cases.  "In  ordinary  cases/'  says  Dr.  P., 
"we  are  not  at  liberty  to  hold  ecclesiastical  fellowship 
with  those  churches  which  cannot  unite  with  us  in  the 
adherence  to  that  system  of  faith  contained  in  our 
Creed."  Applying  this  to  individuals,  the  necessary 
inference  is,  that  Prof.  Dinwiddie  was  not  one  of  "the 
ordinary  cases-"  The  Covenanters,  too,  "remain  iden- 
tified," as  he  expresses  it,  "with  a  system  of  error;" 
"consequently,  if  the  church  should  receive  such  to 
Communion,  she  would  be  chargeable  with  unfaithful- 
ness to  Christ" — "partakers  of  the  sin  of  such  error- 
ists  !"  These  are  "the  ordinary  cases."  Yet  the  Dr. 
tells  us,  "the  U.  P.  Church  has  not  given  any  express 
deliverance  with  regard  to  the  terms  of  occasional  com- 
munion." We  think  since  that  Church  has  published 
his  book  on  "Church  Fellowship,"  the  "express  deliv- 
erance" is   pretty  plain.     So,  when  the  "Testimony" 


Matters    Miscellaneous.  81 

denies  Communion  to  "those  who  refuse  adherence  to 
her  (U.  P.);  profession,"  "or  who  refuse  to  forsake  a 
Communion  inconsistent  with  that  profession" — the 
"express  deliverance"  is  obvious  enough.  Yet  he 
says,  "the  Testimony  does  not  forbid  occasional  com- 
munion!" 

7.  Indifference  to  truth.  Dr.  P.  makes  various  ef- 
forts to  prove  that  our  theory  of  Communion  leads  to 
the  conclusion  "that  it  is  a  matter  of  no  great  import- 
ance whether  we  believe  the  truth  or  not."  But  this  is 
a  very  small  piece  of  controversial  strategy.  The 
church  is  the  school  of  Christ.  Church  officers  are  the 
teachers  in  this  school  A  certain  amount  of  knowl- 
edge is  required  as  preparatory  for  the  admission  of 
disciples,  i.  e.,  learners.  Are  the  Professors  in  our 
Colleger  "indifferent  to  truth,"  because  they  do  not  re- 
quire a  knowledge  of  the  whole  curriculum  of  study  of 
those  who  apply  for  admission  ?  After  the  same  com- 
mon sense  pattern  we  receive  disciples,  that  they  may 
become  acquainted  with  all  the  truths  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

8.  A  remedy  for  our  divisions.  All  good  men  unite 
with  Dr.  P.  in  deploring  the  divided  state  of  the  church, 
especially  of  the  various  Presbyterian  branches.  On 
this  topic  he  inquires,  "Why  does  division  in  the 
church  become  a  necessity?  Observe  that  he  assumes 
that  there  is  such  a  necessity.  But  it  is  a  notorious  fact, 
that  most  of  the  errors  for  which  he  defends  this  ne- 
cessity and  stands  aloof  from  other  bodies,  exist  in 
his  own  communion.  But  how  does  he  propose  to 
remedy  this  sad  and  deplorable  state  of  a  divided 
church  ?     Let  us  hear  him  : 

"That  the  church  exists  in  a  divided  state,  is  unnat- 
ural and  in  every  way  improper."  "A  separate  Com- 
munion ought  not  to  exist ;  but  this,"  he  adds,  "is  the 
result  of  a  previously  existing  evil,  which  must  first  be 


82  A  Defence. 

removed,  and  then  division  will  cease."  But  what 
does  he  mean  by  this  "existing  evil?"  "Let  error," 
he  says,  "which  is  the  cause  of  division,  be  removed, 
and  then,  as  the  natural  result,  division  will  cease." 
But  this  is  simply  an  identical  proposition — that  so  soon 
as  Christians  agree,  they  will  harmonize.  Let  "the 
cause"  cease,  and  the  "effect"  will  cease.  Certainly  no 
great  discovery. 

Again,  when  Dr.  P.  says,  "let  error  cease" — of 
course  he  means  "the  errors"  of  other  churches.  We 
can  hardly  imagine  his  meaning  to  be,  "Let  our  Jl.  P. 
errors  cease,  and  then  division  will  cease."  It  is  obvi- 
ous, therefore,  that  his  great  remedy  for  divisions  is 
simply  this ;  Let  all  other  denominations  forsake  their 
errors  and  adopt  our  views,  and  unite  with  us  U.  P.'s 
and  then  division  will  cease.  Whether  the  great  body 
of  Protestant  Christendom  is  likely  to  be  charmed  by 
so  brilliant  a  prospect,  and  go  over  to  the  very  small 
minority  of  United  Presbyterians,  is  another  question. 
To  assume,  as  Dr.  P.  appears  to  do,  that  "we  are  the 
people,"  and  all  other  denominations  are  "errorists," 
from  whom  division  is  a  "necessity" — is  certainly  not 
a  very  conciliatory  mode  of  putting  the  case. 

9.  What  Dr.  P.  considers  "a  version"  As  some 
palliation  of  "Father  Annan's"  offence  in  using  Tate 
&  Brady  (instead  of  Rouse),  Dr.  P.  says  "it  is  a  version 
of  the  Psalms."     Take  a  few  specimens  : 

PROSE  VERSION.  TATE  &  BRADY. 

He  rode  upon  a  cherub  and  did    The  chariot  of  tho  King  of  Kings, 
fly;   yea   he    did   fly   upon   the    Which  active  troops  of  angels  drew 
wings  of  ihe  wind.  On  a  strong  tempest's  rapid  wings, 

With  most  amazing  swiftness  flew. 
Thy  people  shall  be  willing  in  the    Ihee,  in   thy   power's  triumphant 
day  of  thy  power;  in  the  beauties        day, 

of  holiness,  from  the  womb  of  the    The  willing  people  shall  obey; 
morniog;  thou  hast  the   dew  of    And  when  thy  rising  beams  they 
thy  youth.  view, 

Shall    all,   redeemed  from  error's 
night, 

Appear  more  numerous  and  bright, 

Than  crystal  drops  of  morning  dew. 


Matters   Miscellaneous.  83 

l  may  tell  all  my  bones ;  they  look    My  body's  racked,  till  all  my  bones 
and  stare  upon  me.  Distinctly  may  be  told; 

Yet  such  a  spectacle  of  woe 
As  pastime  they  behold. 

As    the   hart   panteth  after  the    As. pants  the  wearied  heart  for  cool 
water  brooks,  so  panteth  my  aoul        ing  springs, 

after  thee,  O  God.  That  sinks  exhausted  in  the  sum- 

mer's chase ; 
So  pants  my  soul  for  thee,  great 
King  of  Kings. 

How  amiable  are  thy  tabernacles,    O  God  of  hosts,  the  mighty  one, 
O  Lord  of  hosts.  How  lovely  is  the  place 

Where   thou   enthroned    in    glory 
showst 

The  brightness  of  thy  face- 

These  examples  indicate  what  sort  of  a  version  or 
translation  "Father  Annan"  introduced  into  public 
worship  instead  of  Rouse.  It  is  obvious  that  if  there 
is  no  sin  in  singing  such  "a  version"  as  this,  there  is 
no  sin  in  singing  Dr.  Watts'  paraphrases,  such  for  in- 
stance, as  that  of  the  text  last  quoted.      Psalm  84  : 1. 

How  pleasant,  how  divinely  fair, 
O  Lord  of  hosts,  thy  dwellings  are. 

This  of  Dr.  W.  is  much  more  worthy  of  being  call- 
ed "a  version"  than  any  of  those  cited  from  Tate  & 
Brady.  So  true  is  it  that  the  author  of  the  "Overture" 
was  a  "Psalm-singer"  of  a  different  sort  from  the 
author  of  Church  Fellowship.  And  Dr.  P.'s  charge 
that  we  are  guilty  of  "atrocious  slander"  toward  our 
honored  father,  is  about  as  true  as  most  others  of  his 
statements  on  similar  subjects.  His  theory  requires 
"a  literal  translation"  of  the  Psalms. 

We  have  thus  endeavored  to  present  a  fair  statement, 
chiefly  in  his  own  words,  of  everything  in  the  shape  of 
reasoning  in  Dr.  P.'s  reply  to  our  book  on  Close  Com- 
munion. If  his  review  is  the  best  that  can  be  done 
for  that  side  of  the  question,  the  case  is  desperate 
enough.  To  say  nothing  now  of  the  extreme  weak- 
ness of  his  argument,  where  he  does  attempt  to  meet 
the  positions  of  our  book,  we  have  just  cause  of  com- 


84  A  Defence. 

plaint  of  the  partial  manner  in  which  he  has  exhibit 
ed  the  subject  to  his  readers — viz:  by  selecting  such 
topics  as  he  seems  to  have  thought  would  admit  of 
some  plausible  reply,  and  leaving  many  other  points 
which  are  equally  effective,  without  the  least  notice. 
We  have  had  frequent  occasion  to  remark  upon  this 
feature  of  the  Doctor's  controversial  adroitness;  but  it 
has  been  our  aim  "to  return  good  for  evil,"  and  to  give 
due  consideration  to  all  his  arguments,  great  and  small. 
As  to  the  matter  of  christian  courtesy,  we  regret  to  be 
compelled  to  say  that,  unlike  the  scriptural  account  of 
good  wine,  his  style  does  not  improve  with  age.  We 
give  him  credit,  however,  for  sincerity,  even  in  his  er- 
rors, and  would  be  sorry  to  retort  his  own  words,  "  thou 
hypocrite  I"     Good  men  are  not  always  wise. 


CHAPTER  XII. 
DK.  SPKOULL'S  OBJECTIONS. 

SE  turn  now  to  the  strictures  on  our  book  in  "the 
Reformed  Pi  esbyterian,"  the  Old-Side  Covenan- 
ter Magazine,  edited  by  Kev.  Thomas  Sproull,  D.  D.  Dr. 
S.  is  also  the  Professor  of  Theology  of  that  denomina- 
tion, just  as  Dr,  P.  is  of  the  U.  P/s.  Of  course  he  is 
presumed  to  understand  "whereof  he  affirms."  We 
are  the  rather  encouraged  to  notice  his  review  of  our 
book  by  Dr.  Sproull's  own  invitation — for  he  says, 
"We  would  like  to  see  a  defence  of  it  (our  book) 
against  the  objections  presented,"  viz ;  by  himself. 

1.  "When  Mr.  A.  writes  again,"  says  Dr.  S.  "let  him 
attack  the  position  that  the  church  may  not  admit  to 
her  Communion  any  who  disobey  a  command  of 
Christ."     To  this  I  reply,   that  if  Dr.   S.   means  by 


Dr.  SproulVs  Objections.  85 

"commands  of  Christ,"  the  whole  system  of  doctrine 
and  morals  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  on  that  suppo- 
sition no  one  could  be  admitted  to  communion,  because 
there  is  "no  man  that  sinneth  not."  All  thus  break 
"the  commands  of  Christ."  Even  the  command  to 
practise  "Close  Communion,"  as  he  understands  it, 
Dr.  S.  says,  "is  violated  in  all  the  churches,  not  except- 
ing his  own  !"  Of  course  they  "may  not  be  admitted 
to  ccTmmunion  !" 

Again.  We  concede  that  "the  church  may  not  ad- 
mit to  her  communion  any  person  who  disobeys  a  com- 
mand of  Christ,"  provided  it  is  done  deliberately  and 
persistently.  Take,  for  example,  the  duty  of  infant 
baptism.  If  a  person  acknowledges  the  scriptural  ob- 
ligation, and  yet  violates  it  persistently,  such  refusal 
would  seriously  impair  his  evidence  of  "credible  disci- 
pleship,"  and  would  exclude  him.  But  if  the  person 
be  an  apparently  candid,  serious  inquirer  after  his 
Lord's  will,  and  known  to  be  conscientiously  searching 
the  Scriptures  to  discover  the  truth  on  this  subject, 
such  a  case  would  present  a  very  different  aspect.  If 
I  had  other  sufficient  evidence  of  saving  faith  and  gen- 
uine repentance,  I  would  admit  him  to  communion  as 
a  disciple,  i.  e.,  a  learner  in  the  school  of  Christ;  not 
doubting  that  he  would  soon  be  taught  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  all  needful  truth. 

We  all  admit  that  the  whole  Scriptures  are  in  a  trua 
sense  "the  word  of  Christ;"  also  that  "the  church  may 
not  be  silent  in  regard  to  any  one  truth  which  God  has 
made  known  to  her  in  the  Scriptures."  Now,  if  any 
man  should  say,  "I  do  not  believe  what  the  Bible  says 
in  a  given  place  to  be  true/'  he  would,  of  course,  de- 
stroy his  title  to  be  viewed  as  a  credible  professor  of 
religion.  But  that  is  quite  different  from  the  expres- 
sion of  a  doubt  whether  infant  baptism  or  some  other 
truth  not  essential  to  salvation,  is  taught  in  the  Bible, 


86  A  Defence. 

2.  Dr.  Sproull  tells  his  readers  that  "a  (Presbyterian) 
Session  is  bound  to  admit  to  the  Lord's  table,  any  one 
whom  they  may  judge  to  be  a  believer,  whatever  may 
be  his  profession  or  his  practice/'  This  is  about  the 
same  as  to  say  that  our  Sessions  "are  bound  to  believe 
the  known  habitual  drunkard  to  be  a  sober  Christian, 
&c."  This  is  a  monstrous  misstatement  of  our  doc- 
trine. We  teach  that  every  one  who  by  a  credible  pro- 
fession of  faith  and  a  corresponding  practice,  gives 
scriptural  evidence  that  Christ  receives  him,  the  church 
is  bound  to  receive.  Of  the  qualifications  and  pre -re- 
quisites to  communion,  the  Session  are  the  judges. 
And  so  in  regard  to  doctrinal  belief.  Far  be  it  from 
us  "to  destroy  the  distinction  between  truth  and  error," 
as  Dr.  S.  charges.  The  Scriptures  represent  great  er- 
rors to  have  belonged  to  Prophets  and  Apostles — thus 
Paul  rebuked  Peter  for  his  misconduct,  but  we  do  not 
read  that  he  questioned  his  possession  of  saving  faith  or 
true  piety. 

3.  Equally  unfounded  is  the  charge  that,  according 
to  our  doctrine,  "it  is  alike  to  the  church  whether  her 
members  hold  truth  or  error  on  the  points  on  which 
she  does  not  require  them  to  profess  their  faith."  Our 
doctrine  is  this :  The  church  must  faithfully  warn  all 
against  errors  in  points  not  essential  to  salvation,  be- 
cause they  are  hurtful  to  the  highest  prosperity  of  the 
soul.  But  she  dare  not,  in  the  light  of  the  pattern 
of  Christ  and  the  example  of  the  Apostles,  judge  their 
subjects  to  be  uout  of  Christ,"  and  children  of  ^he 
devil.  Knowing  that  such  persons,  holding  certain  er- 
rors in  non-essentials,  may  nevertheless  possess  true 
saving  faith,  she  dare  not  exclude  them  from  the  table 
spread  for  the  friends  of  the  Redeemer.  She  admits 
them  for  the  purpose  of  training  them  as  disciples,  or 
learners  in  the  whole  "doctrine,  which  is  according  to 
godliness." 


Dr.  Sproull's   Objections.  87 

4.  Dr.  Sproull  says,  "There  seems  to  be  a  studied 
disposition  to  avoid  a  plain  statement  of  the  point 
maintained."  This  he  represents  as  "the  policy  of  the 
friends  of  Catholic'  Communion."  This  serious 
charge  I  solemnly  declare  to  be  perfectly  gratuitous. 
Such  a  course  would  be  utterly  unworthy  of  any  hon- 
est and  upright  advocate  of  truth.  If  Dr.  S.  had 
read  the  book  he  undertakes  to  review,  he  would  have 
found  in  various  places,  beginning  with  the  Preface, 
our  doctrine  as  plainly  stated  as  language  can  make  it. 
Nor  have  I  any  serious  objection  to  the  formula  as  he 
himself  states  it,  thus:  "While  the  church  should 
have  a  comprehensive  creed,  *  *  *  *  she  should 
receive  into  her  membership  persons  who  do  not  be- 
lieve some  of  the  truths  taught  in  those  formularies" 
("the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechism");  for  at 
the  close  you  add — "provided  she  (the  church)  thinks 
(rather  has  scriptural  evidence)  that  the  applicants  are 
believers  (t.  e.  have  saving  faith)  in  Christ."  This 
doctrine  you  will  find  condensed  as  follows  in  my  book, 
p.  60  :  "The  church  should  receive  into  her  fellowship 
all  of  every  denomination  who,  in  the  judgment  of 
charity,  are  to  be  considered  Christians." 

Dr.  S.  concedes  that  we  profess  to  hold  the  same 
Westminster  Standards  with  himself,  but  he  rejects 
the  obvious  distinction  between  those  doctrines  which 
are  fundamental,  and  thus  essential  to  salvation  (such 
as  justification  by  faith  in  Christ,  &c),  and  many  other 
truths  taught  in  those  Standards,  such  for  example  as 
"the  books  of  the  Apocrypha  are  not  of  divine  inspira- 
tion;" "the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament  was  the  native 
language  of  the  people  of  God;"  "it  is  lawful  for  Chris- 
tians to  execute  the  office  of  a  magistrate,  when  called 
thereto,"  kc.  Error  in  regard  to  hundreds  of  such  truths 
does  not  prove  the  person  fundamentally  wrong,  because 
they  do  not  lie  at  the  foundation  of  all  true  saving  faith 


88  A  Defence. 

in  Christ.  We  do  not  think,  therefore,  if  the  applicant 
hesitates  because  he  has  serious  doubts  on  such  sub- 
jects, and  at  the  same  time  gives  all  other  scriptural 
evidences  of  being  the  humble  friend  and  follower  of 
Christ,  sincerely  inquiring  for  the  truth,  that  such  er- 
rors are  sufficient  to  exclude  him  as  "a  disciple,"  i.  e.  a 
learner,  from  the  Lord's  table.  We  rather  encourage 
him  to  come  into  the  church,  in  order  that  he  may  un- 
learn these  and  other  errors.  The  truth  is,  few  per- 
sons have  ever  seen  the  Apocrypha,  or  know  anything 
about  the  Hebrew.  How  absurd  therefore  to  make 
the  reception  of  these  truths  "a  term  of  Communion." 

II. 

We  have  thus  briefly  explained  our.  position  on  the 
subject  of  Communion,  so  as  to  comply  with  Dr. 
Sproull's  demand — "Let  us  know  exactly  what  it  is." 

It  remains  to  present  our  "defence  against  the  formal 
objections  he  makes" — for  which  he  also  makes  demand. 

1.  His  first  objection  is,  that  our  doctrine  "makes  a 
creed  utterly  useless.  This  would  be  very  true,  if  we 
could  adopt  your  definition  of  a  creed,  viz :  "a  sum- 
mary of  truth,  a  profession  of  faith  in  which  is  a  con- 
dition of  membership."  But  our  worthy  friend  will 
perceive  that  he  here  assumes  the  very  point  to  be 
proved— the  very  point  we  deny,  viz  :  that  "a  profes- 
sion of  faith  in  all  the' truths  of  the  creed  is  the  scrip- 
tural condition  of  membership."  But  while  his  defini- 
tion thus  takes  for  granted  the  question  in  dispute,  and 
of  course  disarms  his  argument  of  all  force — we  Pres- 
byterians think  our  Westminster  creed  "not  utterly 
useless."  We  bind  all  our  ministers  and  ruling  elders 
at  their  ordination  to  receive  and  teach  it,  and  as  an 
admirable  summary  of  Bible  truth  we  teach  it,  in  con- 
nection with  the  Catechism,  to  our  children.  We  also 
recommend  parents  to  teach  the  Catechism  when  they 


Dr.  $proull'8  Objections.  89 

bring  their  infants  to  baptism.  Without,  therefore, 
requiring  a  profession  of  all  the  truths  of  the  creed  as 
a  condition  of  membership, "  we  nod  very  great  use  for 
our  admirable  creed.  Even  the  Methodist  Quarterly 
Review  admits  that  it  "has  conferred  the  greatest  boon 
on  every  Christian  in  our  country — has  perpetuated  re- 
ligious liberty,  and  stood  as  a  bulwark  against  the  on- 
sets of  Popery  and  every  other  form  of  seductive  er- 
ror." Certainly  this  Arminian  did  not  denounce  our 
use  of  this  creed  as  "making  it  utterly  useless/' 

Again,  you  say,  "What  is  a  profession  of  faith  but 
a  mere  sham,  when  without  it  the  enjoyment  of  church 
privileges  can  be  obtained?"  You  mean,  that  a  profes- 
sion of  faith  in  all  the  statements  of  the  creed  as  a  con- 
dition of  membership  is  a  sham,  if  privileges  can  be 
obtained  without  such  a  profession.  In  other  words,  to 
set  up  "a  condition  of  membership"  which  you  do  not 
enforce,  is  no  better  than  a  mere  sham.  In  this  I  en- 
tirely agree  with  you.  But  you  candidly  acknowledge 
that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  this  sham  in  your  own 
church.  Thus  you  say,  "in  all  the  churches,  not  ex- 
cepting our  own,  there  is  a  departure  from  the  true 
ground,  in  close  communion."  But  if  you  mean  tha>fc 
a  sincere  "profession  of  faith"  in  Christ  as  the  atoning 
Saviour — a  faith  which  works  by  love  and  purines  the 
heart,"  is  a  "mere  sham"  unless  it  includes  a  belief  of 
the  several  thousand  theological  and  ethical  proposi- 
tions contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession  and 
Catechisms,  then  I  must  regard  your  statement  as  rash 
in  the  exteme,  and  unauthorized  either  by  Scripture 
or  reason.  Faith  in  Christ  as  a  divine  Mediator  is  far 
from  a  "mere  sham." 

2.  Your  second  objection  is  that  to  admit  to  com- 
munion in  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  Presbyterians  do, 
persons  who  reject  some  of  the  truths  of  the  West- 
minster Confession,  but  who,  at  the  same  time,   give 


90  A  Defence, 

evidence  of  saving  faith — is  "to  take  away,  in  a  great 
measure,  the  distinction  between  truth  and  error." 
You  concede  that  this  does  not  include  "what  are  call- 
ed essential  truths,  that  are  kept  out  of  the  common 
ground."  Your  objection  then  amounts  to  this :  "That 
for  a  church  to  admit  to  sealing  ordinances  a  person  giv- 
ing scriptural  evidence  of  saving  faith,  without  re- 
quiring him  also  to  profess  a  belief  in  all  the  non-es- 
sential truths,  including  160  sections  and  several 
thousand  doctrinal  and  ethical  propositions,  of  the 
Confession  and  Catechisms,  is  equivalent  to  saying, 
"that  it  is  alike  to  that  church  whether  her  members 
hold  truth  or  error,  especially  on  those  non-essentials." 
This,  vou  add,  "is  unmistakably  plain." 

But  here  appears  again  your  erroneous  definition  of 
a  creed.  If  a  profession  of  all  those  non-essential 
truths  were  a  scriptural  "condition  of  membership," 
then  indeed  we  would  be  bound  to  maintain  and  en- 
force the  belief  of  them.  And  to  neglect  this  would 
be  to  put  a  slight  upon  those  truths.  But  when  we 
find  the  inspired  record  in  the  case  of  the  eunuch  and 
many  others  to  be  simply  this :  "If  thou  believest 
with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest,"  we  take  that  record 
as  our  guide.  If  a  person  "believes,"  i.  e.  if  he  give 
scriptural  evidence  of  saving  faith  in  Christ,  as  the 
eunuch  did  when  Philip  baptized  him,  though  but  a 
babe  in  Christ,  we  receive  him  j  not  because  he  has 
adopted  the  whole  body  of  divinity,  but  that  he  may 
be  a  learner,  a  disciple  in  the  school  of  Christ,  and 
thus  become  acquainted  with  more  and  more  of  the 
great  and  precious  doctrines  of  his  word.  We  ear- 
nestly maintain  that  the  whole  system  of  Bible  truth 
is  very  important,  nay,  essential  to  the  highest  style  of 
Christian  character ;  but  not  indispensable  to  a  young 
beginner,  a  mere  babe  in  Christ,  in  order  to  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper.     We  constantly  urge  our  peo- 


Dr.  SproulVs  Objections.  91 

pie  to  a  diligent  study  of  the  Scriptures,  in  order  to 
acquire  the  knowledge  they  impart. 

In  view  of  these  explanations,  how  utterly  ground- 
less your  assertion  that  our  doctrine  involves  and  gives 
its  influence  to  the  "pernicious  sentiment, "  that  "it 
matters  not  what  a  man  believes,  provided  he  is  sin- 
cere and  his  practice  is  right" — which  is  about  the 
same  as  to  say,  that  "it  matters  not  whether  a  man  be 
doctrinally  a  Jew,  Mohammedan,  Christian  or  Pagan, 
provided  he  be  sincere/'  &c.  We  disclaim  the  small- 
est approach  to  any  such  monstrous  absurdity.  The 
man  who  should  avow  it  in  our  church,  would  be  char- 
itably considered  non  compos,  or  cast  out  of  it. 

3.  Your  third  objection  to  our  doctrine,  viz  :  that 
the  church  may  scripturally  receive  into  membership 
persons  who  reject  some  of  several  thousand  "truths 
taught  in  the  formularies,"  takes  this  shape :  "Its  ten- 
dency," you  say,  "is  to  break  down  the  discipline  of 
the  church."  Of  course  you  mean,  "discipline  for  er- 
rors in  the  truths  which  are  non-essentials  to  saving 
faith."  We  admit  that  our  doctrine  discourages  eccle- 
siastical discipline  by  formal  trial  for  such  sins  as 
many  of  those  which  are  properly  forbidden  in  our 
catechetical  standards ;  for  example,  "speaking  the 
truth  unseasonably" — "thinking  or  speaking  too  high- 
ly, or  too  meanly  of  ourselves" — "fond  admiration" — 
"undue  delay  of  marriage" — "distracting  cares  in- 
dulged," &c,  &c,  &c  ,  and  hundreds  of  others  of  the 
same  general  character.  The  duties  required  in  these 
extracts,  your  doctrine  makes  "terms  of  communion" 
equally  with  true  repentance  and  saving  faith ;  and  of 
course,  you  are  bound  to  discipline  all  offenders  on 
these  points,  and  to  exclude  them  from  communion. 
We  think  it  a  high  recommendation  of  our  doctrine, 
that  it  "breaks  down  such  discipline  "  There  is  no 
more  reason,  moreover,  in  requiring  a  perfect  system  of 


92  A  Defence. 

doctrinal  belief  of  all  intending  communicants,  though 
mere  babes  in  Christ,  than  there  is  in  demanding  a 
perfect  obedience  in  morals  of  all  those  who  are  in- 
tending to  become  members  of  the  church. 

4.  Your  fourth  objection  to  our  doctrine:  "It takes 
away  an  incentive  to  know  the  truth."  To  give  point 
to  this  objection,  you  represent  our  theory  as  teaching 
that  "there  are  some  truths  taught  in  the  Bihle  that 
the  church  may  ignore,  and  allow  error  to  bs  held  in- 
stead of  them/'  Of  course  you  mean,  c'the  church 
may  allow  error"  on  these  "same  truths,"  without,  on 
account  of  these  errors,  rejecting  the  apparently  pious 
applicant  for  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  though 
but  "a  babe  in  Christ."  Thus,  for  example,  such  Bi- 
ble truths  as  these,  viz :  "A  homer  is  the  tenth  part 
of  an  ephah."  "The  asses  of  Kish,  Saul's  father, 
were  lost,"  &c,  &c,  &c.  These  are  "truths  taught  in 
the  Bible,"  and  if  the  intending  communicant  is  dis- 
covered to  be  sound  in  the  great  fundamental  doctrines 
of  salvation  by  faith  in  Christ,  repentance  toward  God, 
&c,  and  leads  a  serious,  humble,  moral  life,  we  think 
it  only  right  to  give  him  time  to  acquire  such  truths 
as  the  foregoing  and  many  others  of  like  importance. 
We  do  not  reject  him  on  this  account.  To  this  ex- 
tent, your  charge  of  "tolerating  error"  has  any  weight 
as  against  our  theory  of  admitting  to  sealing  ordi- 
nances those  who,  in  the  judgment  of  cbarity,  are 
truly  pious.  We  admit  your  charge  to  be  true  thus 
far,  that  we  esteem  "this  whole  class  of  truths  to  be  of 
little  value/'  as  you  express  it,  if  viewed  as  indispen- 
sable 'terms  of  communion."  But  we  are  far  from 
setting  a  low  valuation,  when  used  for  the  proper  ob- 
jects, on  any  thing  which  a  gracious  God  has  seen 
proper  to  reveal  in  his  blessed  word.  All  Scripture  is 
profitable,  but  not  to  be  employed  for  all  purposes. 

5.  Your  fifth    objection:  The    doctrine    of  catholic 


Dr.  SproulVs  Objections.  93 

communion  "is  a  hindrance  to  ecclesiastical  union." 
To  this  I  reply,  we  concede  that  our  doctrine  of  com- 
munion is  one  hindrance  to  our  worthy  friend,  Dr. 
Sproull,  and  his  Covenanter  brethren,  from  uniting 
with  Presbyterians.  But  whose  fault  is  it  ?  The  solu- 
tion depends  upon  the  right  answer  to  the  previous  in- 
quiry, viz  :  "Which  body  is  scripturally  right ;  which 
has  the  mind  of  Christ  on  this  topic  ?"  Under  this  head 
you  say,  "The  members  of  the  church  should  neither 
be  allowed  to  hold  error,  nor  to  hold  communion  in 
hearing  the  word  preached,  by  those  whose  creed  con- 
tains error.  Whatever  truth  the  'church  holds  should 
be  enforced  by  discipline."  Apply  this  extreme  doc- 
trine to  "some  such  truths  taught  in  the  Bible/'  as  are 
quoted  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs,  and  see  to  what  it 
will  lead.  There  is  probably  not  a  solitary  member  of 
any  evangelical  church  in  the  world,  who  is  so  familiar 
with  the  Bible,  Confession,  and  Catechisms,  as  not  to 
hold  some  errors,  or  at  least  some  ignorance,  on  some  of 
the  non-essential  points,  such  as  I  have  stated  above. 
If  Dr.  Sproull  himself  were  examined  on  all  those 
historical  and  other  points,  we  have  no  doubt  he  would 
betray  many  such  errors. 

6  Your  sixth  objection  :  "Catholic  communion  is 
opposed  to  the  teachings  of  the  Bible."  Your  proofs 
are  these  : 

(1)  "The  church  is  called  'the  pillar  and  ground  of 
the  truth/  "  1  Tim.  3  :  15.  But  several  of  the  apos- 
tles are  called  pillars,  Gal.  2  ;  9.  You  are  aware,  too, 
that  the  commentators  give  at  least  three  other  render- 
ings of  this  text,  either  of  which,  if  correct,  entirely 
destroys  its  applicability  in  this  discussion.  Some  say 
the  phrase  "pillar  and  ground,"  refers  to  Timothy, 
others  to  God ;  and  still  others,  to  "the  mystery  of 
godliness"  in  the  next  verse,  as  "the  pillar  and  ground 
of.  the  truth."     Scott  says,  "It  merely  implies  that  di- 


94  A  Defence. 

vine  truth  is  upheld,  professed  and  maintained  in  the 
true  church  •"  or,  as  another  expresses  it,  "She  is  call 
ed  'the  pillar  of  truth,'   because  she  holds  forth  the 
mind  of  Christ  as  a  pillar  does  an  edict  or  proclama- 
tion ;  and  the  truths  of  God  are   published,  supported 
and  kept  from  sinking  by  her/'     Now  as  to  this,   we 
have  not  the  slightest  disposition  to  dispute  the  point. 
The  church,  we  firmly  maintain,  does  all  this  and  much 
more  than  this.     So  she  is   sometimes  said  to  be   "the 
depository  of  the  sacred  oracles  of  truth."     But  does 
that  prove  that  she  must  not  receive  even  a  ubabe  in 
Christ,"  unless  he  profess  the  whole  vc  lume  of  inspired 
truth,    both  doctrinal  and  preceptive?     If  Paul  had 
proceeded  to  say,  "And  no  pious  person  who  holds  any 
error  of  any  sort,  different  in  any  degree  from  tliissys- 
,  tern  of  truth,  can  be  received  into  the  church,"   the 
matter  would  have   been  settled.     But   Paul  says   no 
such  thing.     You  add,  "This  designation,   'pillar  and 
ground/  &c,  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  toleration 
of  error  in  the  church"     So  it  would    be,  if  "tolera- 
tion" meant_  approval;   but  Walker  will  tell  you  that 
toleration  means  "allowance  of  that  which  is   not  ap- 
proved."    You  will  not  charge  our  doctrine  with  ap- 
proving error. 

(2)  Your  second  proof  text,  "I  beseech  you  that  ye 
be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  in 
the  same  judgment,"  1  Cor  1 :  10 — Scott  interprets 
thus,  "That  whilst  it  seems  impossible  to  avoid  all  dif- 
ference of  opinion,"  ''the  rule  and  exhortation  must 
not  be  changed  on  that  account."  "A  general  agree- 
ment on  all  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Gospel," 
says  another,  "is  all  the  apostle  has  in  view"  "and  this 
would  be  attended,  in  proportion  to  their  humility  and 
di  igence,  with  harmony  in  sentiment  and  affection." 
Paul's  entreaties  that  the  Corinthians  would  aim  to  at- 
tain this  perfection,  viz  ;  in  "speaking  the  same  thing, 
G 


Dr.  SprouWs  Objections.  05 

so  that  there  should  be  no  divisions  among  them/'  in 
no  manner  or  degree  militates  against  our  doctrine.  So 
Peter  exhorts  "all  to  be  holy,  for  God  is  holy.'"*  But 
this  does  not  prove  that  all,  even  young  beginners, 
must  be  excluded  from  baptism  and  the  supper,  unless 
they  have  learned  and  profess  the  whole  system  of  doc- 
trine and  morals  taught  in  the  Confession  and  Cate- 
chisms, so  as  to  hold  all  their  propositions  without  error 
or  fault.  The  same  strain  of  remark  applies  to  your 
three  next  passages  in  proof:  "Stand  fast  in  one  spirit, 
with  one  mind,  striving  together  for  the  faith  of  the 
gospel."  "Hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words/' 
"Earnestly  contend  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints."  These  are  no  doubt  great  and  very  important 
duties  inculcated  and  impressed  upon  church  members. 
And  if  Paul  had  used  this  language  when  treating  of 
the  qualifications  required  of  all  candidates  for  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  would  have  been  directly 
in  point.  But  no  such  thing  is  pretended.  According 
to  Scott  the  commentator,  Paul,  in  exhorting  the  Co- 
rinthians to  be  "perfectly"  joined  together  in  the  same 
mind  and  in  the  same  judgment/'  enjoins  that  which, 
in  our  fallen  condition,  is  an  impossibility,  just  as  really 
as  the  perfect  observance  of  the  moral  law.  Now  if 
this  be  so,  it  follows  that,  according  to  your  use  of  the 
text,  Paul  required  of  those  who  were  candidates  for 
sealing  ordinances,  a  total  impossibility  !  Can  this  be 
true  ? 

In  direct  contrast  with  your  misapplication,  as  we  re- 
gard it,  of  these  texts,  we  oppose  the  express  example 
of  the  eleven  disciples  at  the  first  communion,  with 
Christ  at  the  head  of  the  table.  Those  original  com- 
municants were  without  Christian  baptism — had  not 
certainly  received  the   ''baptism   of   John" — believed 

*Christ  says,  "Bj  ye  perfect,  even  as  your  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect." 
Matt.  5  :  48. 


96  A  Defence. 

Christ  to  be  a  great  temporal  prince,  his  throne  to  be  a 
literal  throne,  his  kingdom  to  be  a  literal  restoration  of 
the  golden  age  of  David  and  Solomon,  &c,  &c.  Again, 
we  cite  all  such  cases  of  baptism  as  that  of  the  eunuch  : 
"If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest." 
"And  Philip  baptized  him."  So  with  the  case  of  Cor- 
nelius (Acts  10),  that  of  the  jailor,  of  Lydia,  &c. 
And  even  the  case  of  Simon  the  sorcerer  (Acts  8), 
presents  simply  this  record  "Simon  himself  believed 
also,  and  when  he  was  baptized,"  &e.  Certainly  in 
these  instances  there  was  nothing  bearing  even  a  dis- 
tant resemblance  to  "a  profession"  of  a  creed  contain- 
ing one  hundred  and  sixty  sections  of  doctrinal  and 
ethical  truth,  some  thousands  of  catechetical  proposi- 
tions, and  forty-seven  pages  of  "testimony." 

One  word  in  conclusion,  in  regard  to  Dr.  S/s   alle- 
gation, that  we  "  have  a   fondness   for   controversy." 
Now  if  the  Dr.  alleges  this  as  a  fault,  we  beg  him  to 
remember  that  in  this  chapter  we  have  only  complied 
with  his  own  request — "  We  should  like  to  see  a  de- 
fence against  our  objections."    If  Dr.  S.  did  not  wish 
us  to  exercise  our  "  fondness  for  controversy"  in  this 
direction,  why  did  he  make  such  a  request  ?     As  to 
Dr.  P.  and  his  principles,  as  before  said,  we  have  only 
complied  with  the  earnest  "  hope "  expressed  in   the 
U.  P.  Testimony,  viz  :  "  that  all  Presbyterians  may  be 
brought  seriously  to  consider  the  grounds  of  our  (U. 
P.)  controversy  with  those  brethren  from  whom  we  are 
in   a   state    of  separation."      Testimony,   p.   46.     In 
view  of  such  earnest  solicitations,  why  should  we  be 
reproached  for  simply  complying  with  the  wishes   of 
the  Doctors  Pressly  and  Sproull  ? 

In  the  language  of  the  wisest  of  the  fathers  of  the 
early  church,  we  close  : 

"  In   necessariis  unitas,  in  non  necessariis  libertas, 
in  omnibus  charitas." 


